IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1446 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.12.2009 Superintendent of Postal Stores Department, Haryana Circle. -----Appellant Vs. The Presiding Officer & another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. --- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, dismissing writ petition of the appellant against award of the Labour Court directing payment of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the respondent-workman against his claim for reinstatement with backwages. 2. The workman was employed as part time Chowkidar on temporary basis at a salary of Rs.468/- per month in the year 1988. His services were terminated after about one year of service. He filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was disposed of in the year 1993 with liberty to the workman to raise industrial dispute. He raised an industrial LPA No.1446 of 2009 dispute, alleging violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act”), which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. The Labour Court, vide award dated 19.11.2008 held that since the post in question had been abolished, he was not entitled to reinstatement. It was further observed that the workman having been engaged without following due procedure, he could not claim reinstatement or regularization in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors. 2006 (4) SCC 1. It was also noted that he had already joined a Government service. However, direction to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- was issued. The amount was to be paid within three months, failing which the same was to carry interest @ 9% per annum. 3. The appellant, thereafter, filed writ petition in this Court, which has been dismissed by learned Single Judge. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no violation of Section 25-F of the Act, as the engagement of the workman was as per terms and conditions of service and was covered by Clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act. In any case, the post having abolished, there was no question of reinstatement or compensation in lieu thereof. The workman had already been appointed to another job. In such a situation, if compensation 2 LPA No.1446 of 2009 was to be paid, having regard to period of one year of service, the amount should have been much lesser. Last submission is that time for payment be extended by three months without liability to pay interest. 6. We have considered the submission. Even though there may be substance therein, having regard to the facts and circumstances and also that the amount of award is not exorbitant, we do not consider it necessary to disturb the impugned order. We accept the last prayer and extend the time for payment by three months from today, failing which the amount will carry interest as directed by learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 23, 2009 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3