CWP No. 23015 of 2011. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 23015 of 2011. Date of decision: December 13,2011. Rai Singh ...Petitioner v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh and Another. Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Rajinder Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Surya Kant, J. The petitioner seeks quashing of the Award dated 23rd July, 2009 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh whereby the reference whether his services were terminated illegally, has been partly answered in favour of the petitioner holding that Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not complied with but the petitioner was still not entitled for reinstatement and was given a lump-sum compensation of Rs.20,000/-. [2]. The petitioner was statedly engaged as Trade-Mate Tubewell Operator on daily wages by the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh w.e.f. 1st February, 2001 and he continued to work as such till 31st January, 2002. The engagement of the petitioner was discontinued from the above mentioned date, against which he raised an industrial dispute. [3]. The Tribunal vide the impugned award has held that since the petitioner served for more than 240 days in a year preceding the date of termination of his employment, it was imperative upon the Management to pay compensation under Section 25-F of the Act which was admittedly not paid, hence the CWP No. 23015 of 2011. ::-2-:: termination of his services was illegal. The Tribunal has further held that since the petitioner was not appointed in accordance with the prescribed procedure as per the Rules governing the service conditions nor any selection process was held, he was not entitled to reinstatement in service. The petitioner has been accordingly held entitled to a compensation of Rs.20,000/-. [4]. The petitioner on the other hand seeks his reinstatement in service. [5]. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the record. In my considered view, no fault can be found with the impugned award. The non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act can not be used as a device to legitimise the back- door entry into public employment. It is an admitted fact that neither the post was advertised nor any requisition to the Employment Exchange was sent. Similarly, no selection process was followed nor any other candidate was obviously considered. The petitioner was directly engaged on daily wages and according to the respondents he had been paid wages as and when work was assigned to him. In such like case, where the fraction of law can not be approved, the Tribunal was justified in devising the alternative mode of awarding compensation to the retrenched employee. In the case in hand, the petitioner as per his own case was kept in employment for a year and following the guidelines laid down by this Court in more than one decisions, the award of compensation of Rs.20,000/- appears to be just and reasonable. [6]. Dismissed. December 13, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE