C.W.P. No.6217 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.6217 of 2008 Decided on : 04-11-2008 Smt. Shanti ....Petitioner VERSUS Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hisar & others ....Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH. Present:- Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, A.A.G, Haryana. HEMANT GUPTA, J The challenge in the present writ petition is to the Award passed by the Labour Court dated 15.03.2007 (Annexure P-1), whereby an Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner was answered against the petitioner, but a compensation of Rs.25,000/- was awarded. It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed as a daily- paid labourer in January, 1989 and continued to work till 31st July, 2000. She has completed 240 days service in preceding one year. Her services have been terminated without any notice or compensation and therefore, the action of the respondent-management is illegal. The learned Labour Court returned a finding that the management failed to produce the muster rolls of eight months out of the last twelve months which were relevant for ascertaining workman's entitlement to the benefit of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Thus, it was held that the services of the petitioner C.W.P. No.6217 of 2008 -2- were retrenched but no compliance of Section 25F of the Act was made. Therefore, keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Ram Sahai and another SC 2007 (1) RSJ 239, the learned Labour Court has awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/- on account of termination of her services as the petitioner could not be reinstated in the public employment. The grievance of the petitioner is that compensation of Rs.25,000/- is meager and wholly unjustified in view of the fact that the petitioner has worked for almost 12 years before termination of her services. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We find that there is no finding of the learned Labour Court that the petitioner has worked from January, 1989 and continued to work till 31st July, 2000. In fact, the finding is that since the Management has not produced the muster rolls of eight months out of 12 months preceding the date of termination, therefore, the non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act was inferred. In fact, before granting compensation, the Tribunal ought to have returned a categorical finding for the period, for which the workman was engaged. In the absence of any finding and any evidence of engagement of the workman for 11 years, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned Award, which may warrant interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. (Hemant Gupta) Judge 4th November 2008. (Nawab Singh) Monika Judge