IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 18158 of 2008. Date of Decision : March 31, 2009. Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Project, Bhiwani. ...... Petitioner . Versus. Ishwer @ Devi Singh, and another. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Ms. Kirti Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Rajotia, Advocate, for the respondent No. 1. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 12.01.2007 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman, holding him entitled to reinstatement and continuity of service and other consequential benefits including 50 per cent back wages from the date of issuance of demand notice i.e. 20.06.2000 till the date of publication of the award and full wages thereafter till reinstatement. Counsel for the petitioner contends that even if the findings as recorded by the Labour Court, are taken to be correct but still the workman cannot be held entitled to reinstatement in service as initial appointment of the workman was not in consonance with the rules governing the service nor scheme as envisaged under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India for making appointment on public post been complied with. She relies upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Ghaziabad C.W.P. No. 18158 of 2008. Development Authority and another Versus Ashok Kumar and another, 2008(4) S.C.C. 261, Mahboob Deepak Versus Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, (2008) 1 S.C.C. 575, M.P. Administration Versus Tribhuwan, (2007) 9 S.C.C. 748, and State of M.P. and others Versus Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007) 1 S.C.C. 575, wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that the post under the State is required to be filled up in terms of the Recruitment Rules and by inviting applications from all eligible candidates. The workman-respondent was engaged on daily wages without following the rules and principles of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore, even if the workman-respondent has completed 240 days of service, the said workman-respondent is not entitled to be reinstated and also for grant of back wages. The workman in the light of the Judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court referred to above, is not entitled to reinstatement against a public post nor is he entitled to any back wages. Faced with this situation, counsel for the respondent contends that although the workman in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Telecom District Manager and Others Versus Kesheb Deb, 2008 (4) S.C.T. 33, and Division Bench judgment of this High Court in the case State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another, 2008(3) S.C.T. 788, may not be entitled to reinstatement in service but would be entitled to compensation for the period he has worked with the management. Perusal of the records show that the workman has put in about 9 months of service with the management but has in any case completed 240 days, therefore, as per provisions of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act has completed one year service with the management. In view of this fact and in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the -2- C.W.P. No. 18158 of 2008. case of Telecom District Manager and Others Kesheb Deb (supra), and Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another (supra), the workman is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to settle equities between the parties. The writ petition is allowed, the impugned award dated 12.01.2007 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, is here set aside. However, the workman is entitled to compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the management within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of with above observations. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 31, 2009. sjks. -3-