C.W.P.No.6422 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.6422 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 11.05.2009 Dharambir ....Petitioner(s) vs. The Executive Engineer, PWD Public Health Department and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Tara Chand Dhanwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the award dated 16.7.2008 (Annexure P-14) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar vide which the reference has been answered against the workman only on the ground that he cannot be reinstated in service as he was not appointed on regular basis and that too without complying with the provisions as contained under the Statutory Rules governing the service. Relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the said award has been passed holding that the workman not entitled to any relief. Counsel for the petitioner contends that a categoric finding has been recorded by the Labour Court that the workman had completed more C.W.P.No.6422 of 2009 -2- than 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. He further contends that it is an admitted position that the provisions as contained under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), have not been complied with and, therefore, violative of the said Act. He submits that the appointment of the workman was not on regular basis and being not in consonance with the statutory rules governing the service, the observations as made by the Labour Court relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be faulted with. However, that would only be effective as far as the reinstatement of the workman is concerned, but in the light of the subsequent judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of District 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, the workman would be entitled to compensation for the termination of his services without complying with the provisions as contained under the Act. He, on this basis, contends that the workman had worked with the Management from July 2000 to March, 2004 when his services were terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, leading to his entitlement for compensation. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent contends that the award passed by the Labour Court is fully justified as the same is based on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the workman, in any case, could not have been granted any relief. The award, therefore, is fully justified and does not C.W.P.No.6422 of 2009 -3- call for any interference by this Court. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The facts, as narrated above, are not in dispute. A finding has been recorded by the Labour Court that the workman had completed more than 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination and also that the provisions as contained under Section 25-F of the Act have not been complied with by the Management while terminating the services of the workman. It is also not in dispute that the workman was not appointed on regular basis nor was his initial appointment as per the statutory rules governing the service. In this view of the matter, the workman is not entitled to reinstatement in service. The only claim to which he would be entitled to, would be the compensation for the wrongful termination of his services in violation of the provisions as contained under the Act. This, he would be entitled to in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in District Telecom Manager's case (supra) and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ishwar Singh's case (supra). The workman had put in service a little more than three and half years i.e. from July 2000 to March 2004 with the respondent- Management and, therefore, keeping in view the length of his service and to balance the equities between the parties, it would be just and appropriate if the workman is held entitled to compensation of Rs.35000/-. In view of the above, the impugned award is modified to the extent that the workman would be entitled to compensation of Rs.35,000/- in lieu of reinstatement for non-compliance of the provisions contained C.W.P.No.6422 of 2009 -4- under the Industrial Disputes Act. A direction is issued to respondent No.1 to release the amount of compensation of Rs.35,000/- within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. May 11, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No