IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15281 of 2009 Date of decision:06.10.2009 Deputy General Manager (Telecom), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Sangrur (Punjab). ...Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, Chandigarh and another. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate, for the petitioner. ---- 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 award under challenge is a direction for reinstatement of a workman who claimed to be a Sweepress in BSNL. The contentions by the management were two-fold: one, the reference was barred by res judicata in that the same workman had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal for the relief of regularization and it was rejected. The second objection was that the workman had not been in regular employment at all. 2. The Labour Court was rejecting the contentions of the management and found that the plea of res judicata was not available for, the decision by the Central Administrative Tribunal on a Civil Writ Petition No.15281 of 2009 - 2 - jurisdictional issue that a service dispute with BSNL-a Company registered under the Companies Act, would not be adjudicated by Central Administrative Tribunal was not a decision on merits. Therefore, it found the reference before the Labour Court was not in any way barred. 3. As regards the contention that the workman had not been engaged by the management at all and she was not a workman, the Labour Court adverted to the admission of the management-witness that the workman had been in continuous employment for more than 12 years. Evidently it was a case where the management had not followed the statutory mandate under Section 25-F and addressing the issue whether it would be lawful to grant reinstatement or to pay compensation. The Labour Court found that there was no plea made that the work was not available and it was also found the termination being illegal, the workman was entitled to be reinstated. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the management assails the award of the Labour Court on the ground that the appointment was not regular and there was no sanctioned post. His further contention is that the award conflicts with several decisions of this Court and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned counsel refers to a decision in Superintending Engineer, PWD (B&R), Bhiwani Versus Surender and another-2009(3) SLR 206, when a Hon'ble Bench of this Court held that even if there was a violation under Section 25-F, the workman shall not always be entitled to reinstatement if public employment was involved. Yet another ruling of this Court was a Divisional Forest Officer, Bhiwani Versus Rajbir-2009(3) SLR 366, where the Hon'ble Bench Civil Writ Petition No.15281 of 2009 - 3 - dealt with the case of a daily wager and the Court found in that case that the employment had been made not in consonance with the recruitment rules and found the compensation was appropriate relief. The learned counsel also referred to two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaipur Development Authority Versus Ramsahai and another-(2006) 11 SCC 684, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with in para 28 a situation of violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. We have no such complaint in this case. Yet another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was State of Rajasthan and another Versus Ghyan Chand-(2006) 7 Supreme Court Cases 755 . I have dealt with the above decisions in a judgment in CWP No.6673 of 2006, decided on 02.09.2009 titled as 'Range Forest Officer, Rewari and another Versus Shri Ram Chander and another'. There is no law that a daily wager cannot be reinstated. There is again no law that in public employment wherever there was a violation of Section 25-F, it should always result only in compensation and no reinstatement is possible. It is a clear misreading of the position of law and none of the decisions which have been referred to by the learned counsel have anywhere stated that relief of reinstatement is impermissible for a daily wager in public appointment. There are two Bench decisions of this Court that have held, by citing Section 25-J of the Industrial Disputes Act that the provision override any other law or contract to the contrary and directed reinstatement in similar circumstances, vide Dhani Ram Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Faridabad-2007(1) SCT 59, and Senior Medical Officer-in-Charge, PHC Versus Sukhwinder Singh- Civil Writ Petition No.15281 of 2009 - 4 - 2007(2) SCT 112. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld relief of reinstatement to a part time Sweeper-cum-Water carrier in New India Assurance Company Limited Versus A. Sankaralingam-(2008) 10 SCC 698. There is no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly. No costs. (K.KANNAN) 06.10.2009 JUDGE sanjeev