C.W.P No.9577 of 2000 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.9577 of 2000 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.08.2009 Executive Engineer PWD Public Health Division Rewari and etc. .....Petitioner Versus Ashok Kumar s/o Sh. Lekh Ram ....Respondent Present: Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl. A.G., Haryana. None for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The award of the Labour Court is challenged by the State on the ground that the workman had left service on 31.01.1995 and there had been never a case of termination. On facts tendered through evidence of witnesses, the Labour Court found that the workman had been in the employment from 01.07.1993 till 31.01.995 and the workman who had put in 240 days of continuous service prior to the date of termination, had not been served with notice under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act or paid compensation as mandated by law. The Labour Court, therefore, directed reinstatement, continuity of service and back wages. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the State, Mr. Nalwa would submit that the issue whether there had been a termination, in the face of express denial by the State that the workman had himself voluntarily abandoned the service, had not been adverted to by the Labour Court. I C.W.P No.9577 of 2000 (O&M) -2- would not countenance such an argument before this Court. It is not as if the workman was approaching the Court at his own sweet will and pleasure belatedly after abandoning his service. The workman had followed up the act of his alleged termination soon by a demand notice and a reference brought to the Court in the year 1996 itself. The finding of the Labour Court that there had been a violation of statutory mandate under Section 25-F shall require to be confirmed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner refers to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryna State Agriculture Marketing Board and another 2009 (122) FLR 665 that affirmed the judgment of this Hon'ble Court where the direction for reinstatement had been interfered with by a decision of this Hon'ble Court on the ground that the workman was a daily wager and a reinstatement shall not be ordered merely because it would be lawful to do so. The Court awarded only compensation and the point before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether a daily wager was entitled to be reinstated by the only fact that there had been a non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 15 and 16 as follows: “....It would be, thus, seen that by catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily C.W.P No.9577 of 2000 (O&M) -3- wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee. Therefore, the view of the High Court that the Labour Court erred in granting reinstatement and back wages in the facts and circumstances of the present case cannot be said to suffer from any legal flaw. However, in our views, the High Court erred in not awarding compensation to the appellant while upsetting the award of reinstatement and back wages. As a matter of fact, in all the judgments of this Court referred to and relied upon by the High Court while upsetting the award of reinstatement and back wages, this Court has awarded compensation. While awarding compensation, the host of factors, inter alia, manner and method of appointment, nature of employment and length of service are relevant. Of course, each case will depend upon its own facts and circumstances. In a case such as this where the total length of service rendered by the appellant was short and intermittent from September 1, 1995 to July 18, 1996 and that he was engaged as a daily wager, in our considered view, a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant by respondent No.1 shall meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly. Such payment should be made within six weeks from today failing which the same will carry interest @9% per annum.....” 4. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble C.W.P No.9577 of 2000 (O&M) -4- Supreme Court affirming a judgment of this Hon'ble Court that there shall not be reinstatement in case of a daily wager and when there is no post available, the only remedy shall be compensation. In that case for a service of the workman for about a year, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to grant Rs.50,000/- as compensation. In this case, the workman has obtained the benefit of a direction for reinstatement before the Labour Court but having regard to the fact that termination had been made nearly 15 years from now, the relief of reinstatement where it is stated that there is no work available, it shall not be the appropriate remedy and the compensation shall be Rs.30,000/-. The compensation shall be paid within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the amount shall carry simple interest @7.5% per annum. 5. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 26, 2009 Pankaj*