IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 6913 of 2008. Date of Decision : February 02, 2009. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority .... Petitioner. (P.U.D.A.) (now G.L.A.D.A.), Ludhiana. Versus. Harinder Pal Singh and another ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sharwan Sehgal, Advocate, for the respondent No. 1. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). Counsel for the petitioner has handed over a cheque No. 358838, dated 20.01.2009 of Rs. 20,727/-, drawn at Axix Bank Limited, Shop No. 3, L.G.F., Surya Towers, 108 The Mall, Ludhiana, issued by the Divisional Engineer, Public Health, G.L.A.D.A., Ludhiana. This counsel for the petitioner states has been calculated on the basis that the workman had been granted Rs. 73.50 per day and the period for which the amount is being disbursed is from 25.04.2008 when the present writ petition was filed in this Court till 31.01.2009. The said cheque has been handed over to the respondent No. 1-workman namely Shri Harinder Pal Singh, who is present in the Court and has been identified by his counsel. C.W.P. No. 6913 of 2008. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 14.03.2008 (Annexure-P-6), passed by the Labour Court, Ludhiana, vide which the Labour Court has held the respondent No. 1-workman entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service with 50% back wages. Counsel for the petitioner contends that even if finding which has been recorded by the Labour Court, is accepted even then the respondent No. 1-workman cannot be reinstated in the light of the fact that he was mere a daily wager and worked with the petitioner for a period of just below two years. He further contends that the appointment of the respondent No. 1-workman was not in accordance with statutory Rules governing the service and therefore, the appointment on the public post cannot be granted to him by way of reinstatement in service. The contention as put forth by counsel for the petitioner is that w.e.f. 01.04.2001, the work of annual maintenance of Sector-32, Samrala Road, Ludhiana, has been transferred to Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, and therefore, the post on which the respondent No. 1-workman is seeking reinstatement, does not exist any more. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent No. 1-workman contends that the order passed by the Labour Court is in accordance with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, and therefore, no fault can be found in the award passed by the Labour Court, and thus, deserves to be sustained. I have gone through the award passed by the Labour Court and heard counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the respondent No. 1-workman was appointed on daily wage basis and the procedure as prescribed under -2- C.W.P. No. 6913 of 2008. statutory Rules governing the service while appointing the workman was not complied with. That being the position there can be no dispute that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India which enjoins upon the petitioner to make the appointments as per constitutional provisions, have not been complied with leading to an undisputed conclusion that the appointment of the respondent No. 1-workman has not been made in accordance with law. Since the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act have not been complied with while terminating the services of the respondent No. 1-workman although respondent No. 1-workman may not be entitled to reinstatement but he would be entitled to compensation for the period he has worked with the petitioner and it will be just and equitable to balance the equities between the parties and grant compensation to the workman in lieu of his reinstatement in service. This Court in case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another, 2008(3) S.C.T. 788, has held that although a daily wager may not be entitled to reinstatement but the respondent No. 1-workman would be entitled to compensation for wrongfully termination of his services. In the light of the said judgment, the respondent No. 1-workman is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,000/-. Counsel for the respondent No. 1-workman has relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited Versus A. Sankaralingam, 2008 (119) F.L.R. 398, to contend that the respondent No. 1-workman would be entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. The judgment on which counsel for the respondent No. 1-workman has put reliance, would not be applicable to facts and circumstances of the present -3- C.W.P. No. 6913 of 2008. case as the question involved therein was of part time worker, who would be entitled to the benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that the part time worker would be entitled to Section 25-F of the Act. In the said case the question was only with regard to the legal issue as to whether part time worker would be covered by the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, if yes, will he be entitled to the benefit of Section 25-F? The Judgment does not discuss the question with regard to the right of reinstatement of such part time worker on public post as is the position in the present case and thus no reinstatement can be granted in this case. In the cases of Ghaziabad Development Authority and another Versus Ashok Kumar and another, 2008(4) S.C.C. 261, Mahboob Deepak Versus Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, (2008) 1 S.C.C. 575, M.P. Administration Versus Tribhuwan, (2007) 9 S.C.C. 748, and State of M.P. and others Versus Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007) 1 S.C.C. 575, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that the post under the State is required to be filled up in terms of the Recruitment Rules and by inviting applications from all eligible candidates. The respondent-workman was engaged on daily wages without following the rules and principles of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore, even if the respondent-workmen has completed 240 days of service, the said respondent-workman is not entitled to be reinstated and also for grant of back wages. The respondent-workman in the light of the Judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court referred to above, is not entitled to reinstatement against a public post nor he is entitled to any back wages. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed and -4- C.W.P. No. 6913 of 2008. the award dated 14.03.2008 (Annexure-P-6), passed by the Labour Court, Ludhiana, is hereby set aside. The respondent No. 1-workman is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,000/- in lieu of his reinstatement. The petitioner is directed to release the said amount i.e. Rs. 20,000/- to the respondent No. 1-workman within a period of one month from today. The present writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE February 02, 2009. sjks. -5-