LPA No. 280 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 280 of 2010 Date of Decision 29.07.2010 Shiv Kumar -----Appellant Versus Presiding Officer and others ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Mukund Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 21.04.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.P. No. 18546 of 2008. It has upheld the award dated 03.04.2008 (Annexure P9) with one modification. The workman-appellant has been awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in lieu of reinstatement by the labour court whereas the amount has enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. The claim of the workman-appellant is that he was employed by the respondents being an oustee from the land that was acquired for constructing the Thermal Plant. The learned Single Judge as also the labour court have concurrently held that no proof could be furnished in support of the aforesaid assertion. Moreover, the learned Single Judge has opined that the LPA No. 280 of 2010 (O&M) -2- workman-appellant has not been appointed in accordance with the procedure established by law, namely, advertisement of the post, consideration of competing claims and then making selection on merit answering the description of Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. Accordingly, the writ petition has been dismissed with modification in the award that the amount of compensation has been enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perusal of the record, we are of the view that no ground is made out for admission of the appeal. Mr. Mukund Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any evidence on record to prove that the workman-appellant was an oustee from the land acquired for construction of Thermal Plant. It has also come on record that his appointment was not made in accordance with the just and fair procedure prescribed by the law. Accordingly, the appeal does not merit admission and is, thus, liable to be dismissed. As a sequel to the above discussions, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE July 29, 2010 Atul