IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 5232 of 2010. Date of Decision : April 08, 2010. Director Animal Husbandry, Punjab, Chandigarh, and others. ...... Petitioners. Versus. Harwinder Singh son of Daljit Singh resident of village Balaudha, P.O. Chak Sharif, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, and another ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, DAG Punjab, for the petitioners. Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate, for respondent No. 1/Caveator. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). Heard counsel for the parties. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the Award dated 08.10.2008 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the respondent No. 1/Workman, holding him entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity thereof and 50% back wages from the date of reference, i.e., 18.09.2003 till actual reinstatement. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the claim of the respondent No.1/Workman had been wrongly granted by the Labour Court. A similar Award was passed in favour of Amir Chand/Workman, who was similarly situated as the petitioner and the said Award was dated 27.05.2004. The said Award was challenged by the petitioners in C.W.P. No. 6006 of 2006 Incharge Government Murgi Seva Kender, Hathi Gate, Amritsar, and others Versus Amir Chand and another. The said writ petition came for hearing before this Court on 01.05.2009, when this Court was pleased to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned Award dated 27.05.2004, passed C.W.P. No. 5232 of 2010. -2- by the Labour Court, Amritsar, and held the Workman entitled to compensation instead of reinstatement as his appointment was not in accordance with the statutory Rules governing the service, copy of the judgment is appended as Annexure-P-9. She contends that the present case is covered on all the four by the judgment of this Court in C.W.P. No. 6006 of 2006 Incharge Government Murgi Seva Kender (supra) decided on 01.05.2009. Counsel for respondent/Caveator is unable to distinguish the case of respondent/Workman with that of the judgment relied upon by counsel for the petitioners. He, however, submits that in another case, i.e., Deputy Director Animal Husbandry and another Versus Bhag Singh and another, 2004 (4) S.C.T. 675, this Court has held that where the appointment of a Workman was not in accordance with Rules, his services cannot be terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) because of the defect in appointment has not been made an exception to Section 2 (oo) of the Act. He contends that a Division Bench of this Court, while relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry and another (supra), allowed the writ petition on this very ground. The S.L.P. preferred by the Department before Hon'ble the Supreme Court stands dismissed and, therefore, the same relief should be granted to respondent/Workman. The proposition as culled out from the judgments, which have been relied upon by counsel for the petitioners cannot be disputed. The requirement of the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act have to be followed in the case of respondent/Workman cannot be disputed and as held by this Court in the judgment, which has been relied upon by counsel for the C.W.P. No. 5232 of 2010. -3- petitioners, this aspect has been taken care of. However, in the light of the latest judgment and law as has been laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Ghaziabad Development Authority and another Versus Ashok Kumar and another, 2008(4) SCC 261, Mahboob Deepak Versus Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula (2008) 1 SCC 575, M.P. Administration Versus Tribhuwan (2007) 9 SCC 748 and State of M.P. and others Versus Lalit Kumar Verma (2007) 1 SCC 575, as also the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Versus Uma Devi, 2006(4) S.C.C. 1, the position which emerges is that the Workmen who are not appointed as per the statutory Rules governing the service, although, there is violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, cannot be ordered to be reinstated. In this view of the matter, the Award dated 08.10.2008 (Annexure- P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, cannot be sustained. However, in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Telecom District Manager and others Versus Kesheb Deb 2008 (4) SCT 33 , and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another, 2008 (3) SCT 788, the respondent/Workman would be entitled to compensation for wrongful termination of his services. To balance the equity between the parties, it would be just and equitable that the respondent/Workman, who had worked with the petitioners from 17.07.1997 to 26.07.1999, i.e., two years, is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,000/-. In view of the fact that the present case is covered on facts as well as on law, vide judgment passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 6006 of 2006, titled as Incharge Government Murgi Seva Kender and others Versus Amir Chand and another, decided on 01.05.2009 (Annexure-P-9), the impugned Award dated 08.10.2008 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Labour Court, C.W.P. No. 5232 of 2010. -4- Gurdaspur, is hereby set aside. The respondent/Workman is however held entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,000/- in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Telecom District Manager and others (supra), and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana (supra). The amount of compensation as assessed by this Court be disbursed to the respondent/Workman within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE April 08, 2010. sjks.