Punjab-Haryana High Court
Maharishi Dayanand University Rohtak ... vs Presiding Officer Labour Court Rohtak ... on 18 March, 2024
2024:PHHC:038692
241
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-16525-2016 (O&M)
DECIDED ON: 18.03.2024
MAHARISHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY ROHTAK THROUGH
ITS REGISTRAR .....PETITIONER
VERSUS
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT ROHTAK AND ANR
.....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Singal, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
SANJAY VASHISTH, J (ORAL)
1. By way of present writ petition, petitioner - Maharishi
Dayanand University, Rohtak, has assailed the award dated 30.03.2016
(Annexure P-1), passed by learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Rohtak, whereby reference No.29 of 2011, has been answered in
favour of respondent No.2-workman.
Management had terminated the services of respondent No.2
- workman and said termination order has been set aside by imposing the
penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect, upon
the delinquent Sh. Jagbir, Peon and his period of absence from duty has
been ordered to be treated as extra-ordinary leave (without pay).
Petitioner - Management was ordered to reinstate
respondent No.2, within a period of two months, from the publication of
the award.
2. Counsel for respondent No.2 - workman informs the Court
that in the present writ petition filed by the Management, no stay of the
operation of the impugned award, was ever granted by this Court and
authenticity of this order/judgment
CWP-16525-2016 (O&M) -2-
moreover, the award has been implemented partially, by taking back the
workman in service.
3. He further informs the Court that after joining the service, he
served with the Department. However, today, a fact is acknowledged to
him that respondent No.2 has expired, during the pendency of the present
writ petition. Thus, he submits that present writ petition can be disposed
of, as no issue is left for its adjudication, unless the same is pointed out
by the petitioner - Management, in specific.
4. On the other hand, there being no representation on behalf of
the petitioner, this Court is unable to continue with the proceedings of the
present writ petition and therefore, considers that present writ petition is
worth to be disposed of, being rendered infructuous, as stated by counsel
for respondent No.2.
5. Accordingly, present writ petition stands disposed of, as the
same being rendered infructuous.
6. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to move an
appropriate application for seeking revival of the present writ petition
with the prepration to argue the matter, within eight weeks from today,
incase, any substantive issue still exists along with a cause of action to
the petitioner.
7. Registry is directed to forward copy of the today's order at
the address of the petitioner mentioned in the writ petition.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
18.03.2024 JUDGE
Lavisha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
