IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1188 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.2.2010 Sukhdev Singh. -----Appellant Vs. Presiding Officer & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. M.K. Singla, Advocate for the appellant. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, upholding the award of the Labour Court and holding that the workman was not entitled to reinstatement with backwages but only to compensation amounting to Rs.35,000/-. 2. The workman worked for less than three years as a daily wager and on termination of his services, he raised an industrial dispute after about seven years, alleging violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act”). The dispute was referred for adjudication to the Labour LPA No.1188 of 2009 Court. The Labour Court held that the workman was not entitled to any relief as the dispute referred was stale. The workman filed writ petition. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition to the extent of awarding compensation of Rs.35,000/-. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the workman should have been reinstated in service. 6. This contention cannot be accepted in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority and another v. Ashok Kumar and another 2008(4) SCC 261, Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula (2008) 1 SCC 575, M. P. Administration v. Tribhuwan (2007) 9 SCC 748, State of M.P. and others v. Lalit Kumar Verma (2007) 1 SCC 575 and Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai and another 2006(II) SCC 684, Telecom District Manager and others v. Keshab Deb 2008(8) SCC 402 and Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ishwar Singh and another 2008(3) SCT 788, holding that reinstatement to a public post could not be ordered unless the appointment of the workman had been made after following the mandate or Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In the present case, the said mandate was not followed. Moreover, the workman raised the dispute after more than six years. 7. There is, thus, no ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 2 LPA No.1188 of 2009 8. The appeal is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE February 16, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3