LPA No. 319 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 319 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.03.2010 Balwan Singh ....Appellant. Versus District Sports and Youth Welfare Officer and another. ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. In the present appeal, order impugned is dated 14.7.2009 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the order of the Labour Court dated 26.7.1995 to reinstate the writ petitioner with full back wages was set aside and respondents were directed to pay Rs.35,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the appellant was appointed as a Groundsman by Sports and Youth Welfare Department, Haryana, Chandigarh, on 20.12.1988 on daily wage basis and was terminated on 29.2.1992. He raised a demand notice. The Industrial LPA No. 319 of 2010 2 Tribunal, Rohtak, vide award dated 26.7.1995 directed the management to reinduct the appellant with continuity of service and with full back wages. The aforesaid order was challenged in this Court by the management by filing writ petition. Learned Single Judge has observed that writ petitioner had worked only for three years and two months and in view of non- compliance of Section 25-F, the adequate remedy would be to pay compensation of Rs.35,000/- to the workman and the order of the Labour Court dated 26.7.1995 was set aside. Order dated 26.7.1995 has been impugned in the present appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 4. Undisputedly, the workman had worked only for a period of three years and two months. His appointment was not a regular appointment but only for period for which sanction was given. No sanctioned post being available, reinstatement was not called for as rightly held by learned Single Judge. Hence, in view of non-compliance of notice under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 adequate compensation in lieu of the reinstatement seems to be justified. View taken by learned Single Judge calls for no interference. 5. The appeal is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 05.03.2010 sk. LPA No. 319 of 2010 3