G.C. Garg, J.
1. Tarsem Lal respondent worked with the appellant as a Salesman in a store on daily wages with effect from February 14, 1976 to June 2, 1980. His services were discontinued thereafter. The workman raised a demand which was ultimately referred to the Labour Court, Chandigarh for adjudication. The Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court, Chandigarh answered the reference by holding that the services of the workman had been terminated illegally and he was entitled to re-instatement with full back wages.
2. Writ Petition filed by the appellant challenging the award of the Labour Court was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by Judgment dated February 9, 1988. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant-Society has filed this appeal.
3. The finding returned by the learned Single Judge to the effect that it could not be held that the Indian Red Cross Society Haryana State Branch is not an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short the Act) has rightly not been pressed by the learned counsel. The counsel for the appellant however relying upon a decision of the apex Court in Surendra Kumar Verma v. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi, A. I. R. 1981 S. C. 422 contended that because of subsequent events it had become impossible for the appellant to re-instate the workman and provide him work as the retail store where he had been working was closed down on April 30, 198l and even all other stores were closed down on November 6, 1986. He, therefore, contended that there, was no work or job for the workman even if he was re-instated and thus, the relief of re-instatement of the workman be not granted. There is no merit in the contention. As per appellant's own case the retail store was closed down on April 30, 1981. This fact was not pleaded before the Labour Court which gave its award on February 3, 1982. Moreover, the fact that the retail store where the workman had been working was closed down on April 30, 1981 and that all other stores were closed down with effect from November 6, 1986 were again not pleaded in the writ petition either initially or by way of seeking amendment thereof. No argument in that behalf was raised before the learned Single Judge. These facts, therefore, cannot be said to be subsequent events and taken note of for the first time in the Letters Patent Appeal. Even otherwise the decision in Surendra Kumar Venna's case (supra) in no way helps the appellant for denying the relief of re-instatement to the workman with full back wages, as neither the appellant industry has closed down nor was it shown that the appellant was in service financial doldums or that the workman has secured better employment-elsewhere. Rather it was pointed out by the counsel for the workman that back wages for a substantial period have already been paid to the workman. It was open to the appellant to dispense with the services of the workman after re-instating him in accordance with law if there was no work or if it was in financial restraints. The present situation is the creation of the appellant itself.
4. In view of what has been observed above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.