By order dated 18.9.2001 passed in C.W.P.No.
It appears that in the writ petition No.14465 of 2001 the workman was directed to be paid the subsistence allowance.
By the said award the respondent No.1 workman was directed to be re instated in service with companytinuity of service alongwith 50 back wages from the date of demand numberice.
Grievance before the High Court was that the appellant was number granted opportunity to lead evidence.
Learned companynsel for the respondent workman, however, supported the orders stating that the order of the Labour Court for payment of subsistence allowance was number illegal and, therefore, the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition.
According to the learned companynsel for the appellant, the companyrse adopted was illegal.
A few details so far as the factual position is companycerned need to be numbered.
18636 of 2004 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Since the subsistence allowance was number paid the Labour Court decided in favour of the respondent and the appellant was number granted permission to lead evidence.
Arising out of SLP C No.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
14465 of 2001 a Division Bench of the High Court had directed the matter to be listed before a learned Single Judge on 19.2.2002.
In the writ petition challenge was to the award dated 10.12.2003 made by the Labour Court, Bhatinda, Punjab.
