The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of upholding the award of the Labour Court and the judgment of the High Court, and the need to fix responsibility for relentless litigation in labour disputes.

S.S.Nijjar, J.

1. Hoping for a change in the attitude of the concerned officers of the State of Punjab, on 17.9.2004, when this matter came up for motion hearing, we passed the following order:-

"Mr. Behl has very fairly stated that the respondents have already lost the matter up to the Supreme Court. He, however, states that an application for review has been filed in the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 4792 of 2003 decided on May 6, 2003. The petitioner was appointed as Peon on June 6, 1997. His services were abruptly terminated on 23.7.1999. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated by the Labour Court on 21.5.2002. This award was challenged by the State of Punjab in CWP No. 4792 of 2003, which was dismissed by this Court on May 6, 2003. Not being satisfied, the State of Punjab filed SLP in the Supreme Court which has been dismissed on 31.1.2004. In such circumstances, we are of the prima facie view that the attitude adopted by the State of Punjab, in the present case, apart from being unreasonable borders on vindictiveness. In such circumstances, Mr. Behl is fully justified in stating before this Court that he will request the department to reconsider the matter. Adjourned to 30.9.2004."

2. On 30.9.2004, we adjourned the matter to 5.10.2004. When the matter came up for hearing on 5.10.2004, Mr. Behl requested the Bench to decide the matter on merits. We heard the counsel for the parties and allowed the writ petition with the following short order:-

"This petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service forthwith. The petitioner shall be entitled to the consequential benefits which had been granted by the Labour Court in its award dated 24.5.2002 with 9% interest from the date of the award till payment. Detailed reasons to follow."

Here we give the reasons.

3 On 18.9.2004, the Prime Minister of this country addressed a joint conference of the Chief Ministers of different States and the Chief Justices of different High Courts of India. The theme of the Conference was Justice in the 21st Century". Some of the observations made by the Prime Minister at that conference would be relevant in the context of the present writ petition which we reproduce as under:-

"...In this background, it is a matter of great satisfaction that the public at large continues to hold our judiciary in high esteem. The judiciary, as custodians and watchdogs of the fundamental rights of our people has discharged its responsibility very well indeed. The Supreme Court of India is a shining symbol of the great faith our people have in our judiciary and to our great pride the Supreme Court has earned high praise all over the world. Generations of learned judges have worked to uphold and to nurture this sacred national trust. They deserve our thanks. Our courts have protected our citizens from the exercise of arbitrary power and the inequities of a poor country frying to modernize itself, Though at times, some decisions have appeared controversial, the ultimate verdict of our people is and hopefully will always be that their constitutional rights are safe in the hands of our Supreme Court and our High Courts."

After eulogizing the Judiciary of India, the Prime Minister highlighted some of the concerns about the judicial system as follows:-

"... There are concerns that are being voiced in some quarters about the delays in disposal of cases and the consequent backlog that has built up over the years. The people of this nation rightfully expect speedy and effective justice. Justice delayed for a common man is justice denied. In delivery justice, courts are torn between two conflicting objectives to deliver timely judgments while at the same ensuring that the rights of any party are not scarified at the altar of speed. At the moment, there is a perception that disposal of cases takes an unduly long time. At the same time, there is a backlog of cases that has been built up over the years. Delays in the judicial pro