IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 18800 of 2007. Date of Decision : January 27, 2009. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Patiala ..... Petitioner. Versus. Shri Harvinder Singh and another .... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Ms. Renu Bala Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent No. 1. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). Respondent No. 1 workman has been served through publication in Dainik Bhaskar as per the order of this Court. None has put in appearance on behalf of the workman. The challenge in this writ petition is to the award dated 09.11.2006 vide which the reference was answered in favour of the workman holding him entitled to all service benefits including continuity of service with 50% back wages from the date of termination of his services. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the workman was appointed as Extra Departmental Packer in Manakpur Sub Office on 12.05.1993 in the place of Shri Sadhu Singh who had resigned from the post suddenly because of which the management had to immediately make stop gap arrangement so that the work should not suffer. She further contends that the C.W.P. No. 18800 of 2007. workman has worked with them from 12.05.1993 till 19.07.1994 only. The appointment of the workman was not in accordance with statutory rules as it is a public post on which the workman was appointed but for a stop gap arrangement in view of the peculiar situation which had arisen because of resignation of the regular incumbent who was holding that post. It is her further contention that the workman was only to show that he was only to produce the proof of age and qualifications and therefore, his services were dispensed with. She therefore, submits that the post being public post and the same having not been filled in the case of respondent workman as per statutory requirements as there was no publication of the post neither proper interview nor proper selection procedure having been followed, the appointment of the workman cannot be said in accordance with law, and therefore, he would not be entitled to reinstatement in service despite there being violations of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the workman was employed on purely daily wage basis on a fixed salary on 12.05.1993. She submits that at the most the 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 Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another, 2008(3) S.C.T. 788. The Division Bench of 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 25-F, 25-G, and 25-H is not entitled to reinstatement but would be entitled to compensation. In the said Judgment also workman, this Court was pleased to grant him compensation. -2- C.W.P. No. 18800 of 2007. Following the Judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another (supra), the award dated 09.11.2006 (Annexure-P-5), passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh, is hereby set aside. The workman has worked with the petitioner from 12.05.1993 to 19.07.1994 more than 1 year, is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to settle the equities between the parties. A direction is issued to the petitioner to make the payment of the compensation of Rs. 20,000/- within a period of three months from today. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 27, 2009. sjks. -3-