IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.343 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 04.12.2009 Kuldeep Singh. -----Appellant Vs. Presiding Officer & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. G.S. Bal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3. --- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition of the appellant to the extent of payment of Rs.20,000/- as compensation but declining relief of reinstatement with backwages. 2. The appellant was appointed as Assistant Lineman on 22.10.1991 and he worked on the said post upto 31.5.1993, beyond which his appointment was not extended. He raised an industrial dispute, alleging violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act”), which was LPA No.343 of 2009 referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. The management contested the claim on the ground that his appointment was on adhoc basis for six months which was extended from time to time and thus, there was no violation of Section 25-F of the Act. The Labour Court upheld the objection of the management that the case fell under Clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act and termination did not amount to retrenchment, relying on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board. v. Darbara Singh (2006) 1 SCC 121 and Kishore Chandra Samal v. D.M, Orissa State Cashew Development Corporation Limited 2006 (1) SCC 253. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed writ petition in this Court. Learned Single Judge declined to accept the plea of reinstatement with backwages following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority and another v. Ashok Kumar and another 2008(4) SCC 261, Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula 2008 (1) SCC 575, M.P. Administration v. Tribhuwan (2007) 9 SCC 748 and State of M.P. and others v. Lalit Kumar Verma (2007) 1 SCC 575, holding that since appointment of the appellant to a public post was without following the mandate of Article 16 of the Constitution, reinstatement was not permissible. However, relying on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Telecom District Manager and others v. Keshab Deb 2008(8) SCC 402 and Division Bench of this Court in State of Haryana through Executive Engineer v. 2 LPA No.343 of 2009 Ishwar Singh and others 2008(3) SCT 789, compensation of Rs.20,000/- was ordered to be paid. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was appointed in sports quota and his services were terminated for not participating in any sports event but reason for not participating in any sports event was that he was never given any opportunity to do so. He was an outstanding sportsman and had been given various medals. Learned counsel also points out that MW-1 Shingara Singh, Divisional Superintendent of the management admitted that the workman was never informed in writing to participate in any sports event and same is the admission of MW-2 Narinder Singh, Senior Sports Officer. 5. Learned counsel for the management states that the order of termination itself shows that he failed to participate in any sports activity. He was also given retrenchment compensation vide order dated 9.2.1995, Annexure P-1. Learned counsel also clarifies that the appellant was orally asked to participate and even otherwise his appointment was made on the condition that he will remain taking interest in sports, for which no written intimation was required. 6. The question for consideration is whether the workman could be reinstated with backwages. 3 LPA No.343 of 2009 7. It is undisputed that the appointment of the appellant was without following any procedure and the nature of appointment was adhoc for a period of six months. In such a situation, the judgments relied upon by learned Single Judge fully apply and the workman cannot be reinstated with backwages irrespective of the fact whether he had been given opportunity to participate in any sports event or not. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant also relies on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy v. Radhey Shyam 2008(5) SLR 566 to submit that compensation amount should have been higher, as in that case, compensation of Rs.3 lacs was directed to be paid. 9. We are unable to accept this submission as the judgment in Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy (supra) is distinguishable. Therein, the award had become final and thereafter, the matter was taken to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in second round of litigation arising out of proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The said judgment was held to be distinguishable in order dated 3.12.2009 in L.P.A. No.566 of 2009 Balwinder Singh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others. 10. It was next submitted that the appellant is faced with great hardship. He has been facing proceedings for last 15 years and has become overage. 4 LPA No.343 of 2009 11. Taking an overall view of the matter, while affirming the findings of learned Single Judge, we direct the management to pay further amount of Rs.30,000/- over and above the amount directed to be paid by learned Single Judge. The said amount be paid within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. The appeal is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 04, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 5