[CASE NUMBER] [1] THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.92 of 2007 Date of Decision: 04 - 09- 2008 [ENTITY] Petitioner v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Respondents Labour Court, Panipat and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] Present: Ms.[ENTITY], Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.[ENTITY], Sr.DAG, Haryana. [ENTITY], J.
Present petition has been filed by [ENTITY] who admittedly was appointed as a Sweeper by the Executive Engineer, Water Services Division, Panipat (hereinafter to be referred as, `the management') in the year 1977. Services of the petitioner were dispensed with in the year 1998. Thus, she has performed the duties with the management for a period of 22 years. While deciding issue No.1, the Labour Court had recorded the admission of the witness of the management that the petitioner has worked continuously from 1977 to 28.2.1998. Learned Labour Court has declined the reference holding that part time worker is not entitled to retrenchment compensation, as envisaged under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. It has been recently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT] that reinstatement of a workman into the service who was working as part-timer was unjustified. In [PRECEDENT], decided on 22.5.2008, a Full Bench of this Court has held that a part time worker is not entitled to retrenchment compensation. The witness of the management MW-1 [ENTITY], J.E. has admitted that the Rest House where the petitioner was working had been closed. Petitioner-workman is a lady. She was a part time Sweeper. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that she used to work daily for four hours. She has rendered service for almost 22 years with the respondent-management. She is in litigation since 14.3.2000 when the demand notice was served. Recently in [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"12. It is now well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that in a situation of this nature instead and in place of directing reinstatement with full back wages, the workmen should be granted adequate monetary compensation. [See [PRECEDENT]]."
Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is a lady, served the management for 22 years and she is in litigation for the last 8 years, to balance of equity, we are of the view that a monetary compensation can be granted in her favour. Therefore, we direct respondent No.2 to pay to the petitioner a lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/-. The amount of compensation be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from today. With this modification, we uphold the award Annexure P4.
Petition stands disposed off.
( [ENTITY] ) ( [ENTITY] ) JUDGE JUDGE September 04, 2008. RC