HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.16185 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.08.2011 **** Jarnail Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. Chief Engineer, PWD, Patiala & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the Award dated 06.08.2008 (Annexure P1) passed by the Labour Court, Patiala whereby reinstatement in service has been declined to the petitioner albeit a compensation of Rs.8000/- has been awarded. (2). The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was appointed as a daily-wage Beldar in the year 1980. He was statedly appointed on a higher post of T-Mate again on daily-wage basis w.e.f. 01.07.1982 and he continued to serve as such till 30.06.1983 when he was allegedly retrenched. (3). It appears from the record that firstly the petitioner filed a civil suit which was held to be not maintainable upto this CWP No.16185 of 2009.doc - 2 – Court and thereafter he raised an ‘industrial dispute’ vide demand notice dated 05.02.1996 (Annexure P2). The Labour Court though has held that the petitioner’s services were terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, ‘the Act’) nevertheless, it has granted him compensation of Rs.8000/- with the following reasons/observations:- “In the light of the above discussion, it is held that Workman Jarnail Singh is not entitled to relief of reinstatement with back wages. Taking into consideration the fact that he worked with the respondents for more than 2 ½ years and his montly salary was Rs.466/- pm and that this reference remained pending in the Court for more than 10 years, interest of justice shall be subserved if compensation worth Rs.8000/- is directed to paid to the workman by the respondent department. Accordingly this issue is disposed of, while holding that workman Jarnail Singh is entitled to get compensation worth Rs.8000/- from the respondents, in place of order of reinstatement with backwages.” (4). The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court. (5). It is true that ordinarily a workman who has been retrenched in contravention of Section 25-F of the Act is entitled to reinstatement on the same terms and conditions on which he was initially employed as ruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2 CWP No.16185 of 2009.doc - 3 – 2010 AIR (SC) 683 and in Anoop Sharma v. Executive Engineer, Public Health Divn.No.1, Panipat & Ors., (2010) 2 SCC 497. However, there are more than one factor to dissuade this Court to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as daily-wager Beldar/T-Mate. (6). Firstly, it is informed by learned State counsel, on instructions from the departmental representative, that the scheme of employing Beldar/T-Mate on daily wages has been disbanded by the Department and the work has been outsourced to private contractors. The respondents, thus, will not be able to employ the petitioner as Beldar/T-Mate on daily wages. (7). Secondly, the petitioner was relieved of the daily-wages job way back in the year 1983. The petitioner is near or has already reached the age of retirement prescribed for Government service. He will neither be able to seek regularization nor any nature of security of employment. (8). Thirdly, the petitioner hardly worked as daily-wager for three-years and the ‘industrial dispute’ was raised after a long spell of 13 years. (9). Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to allow this writ petition in part to the extent of enhancing the lump-sum compensation from Rs.8000/- to Rs.50,000/- which shall be paid to the petitioner within a 3 CWP No.16185 of 2009.doc - 4 – period of three month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (10). This accordingly disposes of the writ petition. Dasti. 04.08.2011 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) Judge 4