IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 7983 of 2002. Date of Decision : March 23, 2010. State of Haryana through Joint Registrar (Enf.) Cooperative Societies, Haryana, Chandigarh. ...... Petitioner . Versus. Hari Ram s/o Shri Risal Singh, r/o House No. 1806, Mohala Ariyan Mani Majra, U.T. Chandigarh, and another. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl. A.G. Haryana, for the petitioner . None for respondent No. 1/Workman. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 06.06.2000 (Annexure-P-12), passed by the Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the Labour Court”), wherein the reference had been answered in favour of the respondent No. 1/Workman (hereinafter referred to as “the Workman”), holding him entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. Counsel for the petitioner/Management (hereinafter referred to “the Management”) contends that the Workman was appointed on 21.04.1995 on 89 days basis and thereafter, the Workman was engaged on daily wage basis temporarily for 89 days with effect from 21.04.1995 to 18.07.1995, then after a day's break from 20.07.1995 to 16.10.1995 and then again after one day break from 18.10.1995 to 14.01.1996 and thereafter again engaged after a day's break from 16.01.1996 to 14.04.1996 and then again after a day's break from 16.04.1996 to 13.07.1996 and ultimately from 15.07.1995 to 25.10.1996. He on this basis contends that all through the appointment, which had been given to the Workman, were on pure contractual basis. The C.W.P. No. 7983 of 2002. -2- period was specified, i.e., 89 days and he continued as such. His services were dis-continued in the light of the Instructions dated 09.01.1996 (Annexure-P-8) issued by the Government of Haryana, according to which no daily wager was to be appointed by the Departments in future. He, therefore, contends that the termination of services of the Workman would be covered by the provisions of Section 2 (oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), which would not amount to retrenchment. The findings, thus, given by the Labour Court that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act have not been complied with, cannot be sustained. He, however, admits that at the time of termination of service of the Workman, no notice for termination or pay in lieu thereof nor any retrenchment compensation was paid. None has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1/Workman. I have heard counsel for the petitioner/Management and have gone through the records of the case. A perusal of the records and Award would show that the Workman, as a matter of fact, and it is admitted on behalf of the Management, had completed more than 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months from the date of termination his services. It is also admitted position that no notice or pay in lieu of notice or the retrenchment compensation was paid to the Workman at the time of termination of his services. The contention of counsel for the petitioner/Management that the appointment of the Workman was for a specified period and, therefore, on completion of the said period, non renewal of contract would come within the provisions of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act, which would not amount to retrenchment, cannot be accepted for the reason that the services of the Workman were not terminated merely because of completion of term of C.W.P. No. 7983 of 2002. -3- appointment, but on the basis of the Instructions dated 09.01.1996 (Annexure-P- 8) issued by the Government of Haryana, according to which instructions were issued to all the Heads of the Departments not to appoint any daily wager in future. Thus, the reason which counsel for the Management has tried to project before this Court cannot be accepted and, therefore, the termination of services of the Workman would not be covered by provisions of Section 2 (oo)(bb) of the Act. Since the termination of services of the Workman was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, therefore, the same was not in accordance with law and the finding given by the Labour Court, thus, cannot be faulted with. The direction of reinstatement as has been granted by the Labour Court, cannot be sustained for the reason that there was clear instructions of the Government that there shall be no daily wage appointment after issuance of the Instructions dated 09.01.1996 (Annexure-P-8). It is not the case of the Workman/respondent nor has any evidence been brought on record which would have suggested from the Award that daily wage appointments were made subsequent to termination of services of the Workman, the claim for reinstatement, therefore, cannot be said to be justified in this case. The order granting reinstatement in service to the Workman, thus, cannot be upheld. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The Award dated 06.06.2000 (Annexure-P-12) passed by the Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh, is modified to the extent that the Workman would be entitled to compensation for his illegal termination and in lieu of reinstatement. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances and also in view of the fact that the Workman had worked with the Management from 21.04.1995 to 25.10.1996, the Workman is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. C.W.P. No. 7983 of 2002. -4- This would be in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of District Telecom Manager and others Versus Keshab Dev, 2008 (4) S.C.T. 33 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another, 2008 (3) S.C.T. 788. The compensation as assessed by this Court shall be released to the Workman within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 23, 2010. sjks.