IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.19184 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 15.05.2009 State of Haryana and another ....Petitioner(s) vs. Raghbir Singh and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Kartar Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioners. Mr.Madan Mohan, Advocate, for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the award dated 14.7.2005 (Annexure P-1) vide which the reference has been answered in favour of respondent No.1-workman holding him entitled to reinstatement in service along with all benefits including continuity of service and full back wages. Counsel for the petitioners contends that even if the findings as recorded by the Labour Court are taken to be correct, then also the workman would not be entitled to reinstatement in service since his services were engaged on daily wage basis. He contends that it is not the assertion of the workman that his engagement was initially made as per statutory rules governing the service nor is it his claim that any selection process was gone through while making his appointment on daily wage basis. He contends that since a daily wager does not hold a regular post and C.W.P.No.19184 of 2005 (O&M) -2- the appointment made on daily wage basis can not confer any right on him to continue as such; respondent No.1-the workman would not be entitled to reinstatement in service in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ghaziabad Development Authority and another vs. Ashok Kumar and another, 2008 (4) SCC 261, Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, (2008) 1 SCC 575, M.P. Administration vs. Tribhuwan, (2007) 9 SCC 748, Uttranchal Forest Development Corpn. vs. M.C.Joshi, (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 813, State of M.P. and others vs. Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007) SCC 575. He further contends that the impugned award ordering reinstatement of the workman on the post cannot be sustained as he was merely a daily wager. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No.1-the workman contends that the workman has been reinstated in service on 20.1.2006 in pursuance to the award passed by the Labour Court and since then is continuing as such. He contends that the finding as recorded by the Labour Court is based upon the evaluation of pleadings and evidence produced thereon by the parties before it and it has rightly been held that the provisions as contained under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have not been complied with while terminating the services of the workman. He, on this basis, submits that the contention as raised by the counsel for the petitioners is not sustainable and the impugned award does not call for any interference by this Court. He further contends that the reinstatement of the workman is a natural consequence of the provisions as contained under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which as per the findings, have been violated by the Management while terminating his C.W.P.No.19184 of 2005 (O&M) -3- services. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The admitted position in the present case is that the workman was appointed on daily wage basis on 1.12.1991and he continued as such till 30.4.1993 when his services were terminated without complying with the provisions as contained under the Act. The termination of the services of the workman was, thus, in violation of the provisions as contained under the Act. It is also an admitted position that the workman was appointed on daily wage basis and had not undergone the process of selection nor there is anything on record to suggest that his appointment had been made in accordance with the statutory rules governing the service. This assertion has also not come on the part of the workman that his appointment was in consonance with the statutory rules governing the service. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above- mentioned cases relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners, a workman, who has been appointed on daily wage basis de hors the statutory rules does not hold a post and is not entitled to reinstatement on a public post merely because the provisions as contained under the Act have not been complied with while terminating his services. In this view of the matter, the impugned award dated 14.7.2005 (Annexure P-1) cannot be sustained. However, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of District Telecom Manager and others vs. Keshab Dev, 2008 (4) S.C.T.33 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ishwar Singh and another, 2008 (3) S.C.T. 788, the workman would be entitled to C.W.P.No.19184 of 2005 (O&M) -4- compensation to balance the equities between the parties for the termination of services of the workman in violation of the provisions as contained under the Act. Since the workman has worked with the Management for a period of about one and a half years, i.e. from 1.12.1991 to 30.4.1993, he is held entitled to get compensation of Rs.15,000/-. In view of the above, the impugned award dated 14.7.2005 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Ambala, is hereby set aside. However, the workman is held entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/-. It is made clear that no recovery would be effected from the workman for the wages he has earned on reinstatement in service and thereafter. A direction is also issued to the petitioners to release the amount of compensation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. At this stage, counsel for respondent-workman states that since respondent No.1-workman has been taken back in service and the work is available with the petitioner-Management, he would make a representation to the petitioner-Management which may be considered and decided sympathetically. If such a representation is made by the workman, the same be considered sympathetically. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. May 15, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/Nocwp