C.W.P No.8880 of 1993 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.8880 of 1993 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.07.2009 State of Punjab through Director of Agriculture, Punjab, Chandigarh and others .....Petitioners Versus Palwinder Singh S/o Sh. Bawa Singh and others ....Respondents Present: Ms. Monika Chhibbar Sharma, DAG, Punjab. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. To the reference before the Labour Court for an adjudication whether the termination of services of the workmen was justified or not, the Labour Court took note of the fact that the workman had been employed from 27.04.1987 to 15.03.1991 and since he had put in more than 240 days of service prior to the date of termination, the termination made without giving him one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof, amounted to non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act making the termination null and void. The Labour Court consequently allowed the reference and ordered reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and back wages. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the management contends in the writ petition that the nature of engagement of the workman was for C.W.P No.8880 of 1993 (O&M) -2- seasonal work connected to the Agriculture Department and the termination was on account of the engagement being for a particular purpose, which purpose had been fulfilled and consequently excepted by the provisions of Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The further contention was that in any event, the order of appointment had not been against any sanctioned post. The appointment being contrary to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the workman was not entitled to be reinstated or regularized. As regards the first contention that the workman was employed for a particular period and therefore, on completion of the period of engagement, the services automatically stood terminated and hence did not quality for applying the expression retrenchment for the termination of service, it shall be seen that there is no specific letter of appointment qualifying his services as beginning and ending between any specific periods or that the engagement was only seasonal in character. The engagement would not, therefore, qualify for the exception provided under Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The entitlement to notice and retrenchment compensation as provided under Section 25-F cannot, therefore, be doubted. 3. The solitary residual point that may have to be still seen is whether the workman shall be entitled to reinstatement and backwages. A daily rated worker, in a non-sanctioned post, in a department of the Government will have no right to seek for reinstatement and by virtue of the evidence available before the Labour Court that he had worked between the periods from 27.04.1987 to 15.03.1991 i.e. for a period of four years, the workman C.W.P No.8880 of 1993 (O&M) -3- would only be entitled to compensation. In my view, a compensation of Rs.40,000/- would adequately meet the ends of justice. 4. While setting aside the award of the Labour Court, I direct that the petitioner shall be liable to pay the compensation of Rs.40,000/- to the workman. With such modification, the writ petition is disposed of. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 09, 2009 Pankaj*