IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16092 of 1990 Date of decision:26.08.2009 Gurnam Singh and others ...Petitioners versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh and others. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. R.S.Minhas, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate, for respondents 2 to 4. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The counsel for the petitioners states that he has no instructions to appear for Mr. Kuldip Singh (4th petitioner) and states that the workman has actually been reinstated and regularized in the successor of the Punjab Housing Development Board, Chandigarh- Punjab Urban Development Authority. This order shall, therefore, be construed as not affecting the rights which had already come to him. 2. The writ petition challenges the award passed by the Labour Court which found, as a matter of fact, that all the workmen had completed 240 days of continuous service, but the termination had been Civil Writ Petition No.16092 of 1990 - 2- effected without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court still did not order reinstatement, accepting the contention of the management that all the workmen had been employed for specific construction works, which had been completed and as such, the services were no longer required. The impugned order itself stated that they were all being retrenched w.e.f. 31.10.1982 only on account of the fact that the works had completed. The Labour Court, however, still held that the workmen had completed 240 days of service and they could not have been terminated without resort to the procedure laid down under Section 25-F. The Labour Court, therefore, held that it would be fair and reasonable that in lieu of reinstatement, the workman could be granted compensation of six months' wages apart from the retrenchment compensation payable under Section 25-F of the Act. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assails the award of the Labour Court on the ground that apart from a mere contention that they had all been engaged on specific projects of construction, no proof had been let in before the Labour Court. It was also his contention that all the workmen had complained of violation of Section 25-N also and the Labour Court did not consider the issue. It was further contended on behalf of the workmen, if it was proved that there had been statutory non-compliance of Section 25-F, reinstatement ought to have been the only obvious corollary. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohan Lal Versus The Management of M/s Bharat Civil Writ Petition No.16092 of 1990 - 3- Electronics Limited-AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1253(1), that a non- compliance of Section 25-F would render a retrenchment as void ab initio and the workmen shall be entitled to reinstatement. 4. It is an admitted case that subsequent to the passing of the award, the Punjab Housing Development Board had merged with Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA) and they have their own rules and regulations relating to engagement of workman. There is no clear information brought before me as to any particular rules which are prescribed under PUDA where there are any particular posts like Work Munshis and whether any particular procedure has been set forth for the appointments to such posts. But in the absence of such rules, I do not propose to modify the award passed by the Labour Court since it has applied a principle which is most talked about through judicial pronouncements. It is that a violation of Section 25-F does not always result in a right of reinstatement merely because it is lawful to do so. The judicial opinion has veered around the concept of examination whether it shall be appropriate, having regard to the nature of engagement, the appointments to public bodies and corporations, the number of years of service that the workman had put in, the length of the litigation itself etc. All these workmen had been ordered to be terminated by a notice issued as early as on 31.10.1982, which is merely 27 years and it is not possible to take a fresh look at directing reinstatement. Again, on a consideration by the Labour Court that the employer had stated that the works had been completed and therefore, the services were not necessary, in my view, it shall be inappropriate to Civil Writ Petition No.16092 of 1990 - 4- direct reinstatement in such a case. The Labour Court had applied the correct yardstick and had come to a conclusion which provided for a compensation again which was fair in such a situation. There is no ground to set aside the award of the Labour Court and it is confirmed. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 26.08.2009 sanjeev