LPA No. 715 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 715 of 2011 Date of Decision: December 16, 2011 The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Department of Post, Post Office, Ludhiana …Appellant Versus Baljit Singh .Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 03.03.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge upholding the award of the Labour Court dated 22.07.2010. The Labour Court has held in favour of the workman that the Potal Department is an industry and there was relationship of an employer and employee between the management and the workman. It has further been held under Issue No.2 that the case was not covered by the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act') and termination of services of the workman is retrenchment within the meaning of LPA No. 715 of 2011 -2- Section 2(oo) of the Act and that the workman-appellant has completed more than 240 days in the preceding calendar year. As the provisions of Section 25F of the Act were not complied with, the termination was held illegal. However, relief claimed by the workman for reinstatement and regularisation of his services, has been declined on the ground that he was not recruited through employment exchange and therefore, could not have been granted the benefit of regularisation. Accordingly, the Labour Court awarded a lump sum compensation of ` 50,000/-. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that no interference of the Letters Patent Bench would be warranted because once there is violation of Section 25F of the Act then there is no escape from the conclusion that the workman- appellant was not entitled to relief. However, the relief has been moulded on the ground that the workman-appellant was not recruited through a valid source i.e. employment exchange. A sum of ` 50,000/- in the facts and circumstances of this case, awarded to the workman-appellant is wholly justified. The appeal does not merit admission. 3. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE December 16, 2011 Atul