C.W.P.No.9096 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.9096 of 2001 Date of Decision:- 17.02.2009 Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. ....Petitioner(s) vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Panipat and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Abha Rathore, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the award dated 13.12.2000 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, vide which the reference was answered in favour of the workman holding him entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 2.11.1994. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the workman cannot be put back in service as it is a public appointment and the appointment was not made in accordance with the Statutory Rules governing the service. He further contends that in any case, the appointment of the workman was for a specified assignment and on completion of such assignment, the services of the workman came to an end, the case being covered by the C.W.P.No.9096 of 2001 -2- provisions of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which is an exception to the term “retrenchment”. It would not be a retrenchment and, therefore, non- compliance of Section 25-F of the Act would not confer any right upon the workman. That being so, the award passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ghaziabad Development Authority and another vs. Ashok Kumar and another, 2008 (4) SCC 261, Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, (2008) 1 SCC 575, M.P. Administration vs. Tribhuwan, (2007) 9 SCC 748, Uttranchal Forest Development Corpn. vs. M.C.Joshi, (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 813, State of M.P. and others vs. Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007) SCC 575, to contend that the post under the State are required to be filled up in terms of the Recruitment Rules and by inviting applications from all eligible candidates. It is contended that the respondent-workman was engaged on daily wages without following the rules and principles of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, therefore, even if the workman has completed 240 days of service, he is not entitled to be reinstated and also for the grant of back wages. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaipur Development Authority vs. Ramsahai and another, (2006) 11 SCC 684. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that at the most the respondent-workman would be entitled to compensation for the period he has worked with the petitioner but he cannot be reinstated in service in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of District C.W.P.No.9096 of 2001 -3- Telecom Manager and others vs. Keshab Dev, 2008 (4) S.C.T.33 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ishwar Singh and another, 2008 (3) S.C.T. 788. This Court has held that a daily wage employee, even in case there is non-compliance of the Act and there is violation of Sections 2 (oo) (bb), 25-F, 25-G and 25-H, is not entitled to reinstatement on a public post but would be entitled to compensation. In the said judgment also, this Court has granted compensation to the workman. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-workman contends that there is no proof or evidence led by the petitioner on the basis of which it could be said that the service of the workman was for a specified work and on completion thereof, his services were to be terminated in accordance thereof. She further contends that during the pendency of the writ petition and in accordance with the Section 17-B of the Act, the workman all through has been working with the petitioner and as per petitioner's own admission, the workman has superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years which is as per the statutory requirement. She further states that this, she is asserting on the basis of the fact that after the workman attained the age of 60 years, he has not been paid the wages as required under Section 17-B of the Act. She further submits that the workman would not claim his back-wages provided he is granted continuity of service and since the workman has now completed more than 15 years, and if the award is taken to have been implemented, he would be entitled to retiral benefits. On this basis, she submits that the award passed by the Labour Court should be upheld. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions C.W.P.No.9096 of 2001 -4- made by the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance have gone through the records of the case. It is not in dispute that the post on which the workman has been reinstated by the Labour Court by its impugned award is a public post. Such engagement was not in terms of the Recruitment Rules applicable to the post or by giving opportunity to all eligible candidates to apply and to be considered for appointment. Therefore, the workman cannot be ordered to be reinstated. The submissions raised by the counsel for the respondent-workman cannot be accepted for the reason that the judgments aforesaid which has been relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner would not permit such recourse in the present case. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Keshab Dev's case (supra) and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ishwar Singh's case (supra), the award dated 13.12.2000 (Annexure P- 3) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat is hereby set aside. The workman who has worked with the petitioner from 1.7.1993 till 5.7.1994 is held entitled to compensation of Rs.10,000/- to settle the equities between the parties in lieu of reinstatement. This petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make the payment of compensation of Rs.10,000/- within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. February 17, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No