IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 4924 of 2010. Date of Decision : March 18, 2010. Randhir Singh ...... Petitioner . Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh, and another ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. D.K. Nagar, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 29.04.2009 (Annexure-P-7), passed by the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as “the Labour Court”), vide which the petitioner has been granted compensation in lieu of reinstatement in the light of the fact that he was not appointed in consonance with the statutory Rules governing the service and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the petitioner/Workman contends that the finding as has been recorded by the Labour Court that the provisions under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), have been violated by respondent No. 2/Management (hereinafter referred to as “the Management”), the petitioner should have been reinstated in service. Only compensation has been granted and that too a meager amount of Rs. 10,000/-. He, therefore, contends that the Award passed by the Labour Court deserves to be set aside to the extent that no reinstatement has been granted and the amount of compensation is too meager and, therefore, needs enhancement. C.W.P. No. 4924 of 2010. -2- I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. A perusal of the records shows that there is an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in putting forth his demand. As per assertion, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 20.08.1995, whereas the demand had been preferred by the petitioner in April, 2004, thus, the delay is more than nine years. In any case, the petitioner had worked with the Management from 07.10.1992 to 20.08.1995. The fact that the Workman had not been appointed in consonance with the statutory Rules governing the service and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, cannot be disputed with, and, therefore, the Workman was not entitled to reinstatement on a public post. No illegality, therefore, has been committed by the Labour Court in not granting reinstatement in service to the Workman despite violation of Section 25-F of the Act. The amount of compensation as has been assessed by the Labour Court 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, is fully justified and, thus, does not call for any further enhancement of compensation by this Court. Dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 18, 2010. sjks.