IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1097 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 6, 2010 Rajesh Tiwari …Appellant Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Ambrish Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The unsuccessful workman having been denied the relief of re- instatement by the Labour Court in its award dated 5.6.2009 (P-12) and also having lost before the learned Single Judge, has filed the instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent with a prayer that he should be reinstated in service. 2. It is conceded on facts that the appellant had rendered two years and four months service on the post of Peon and thereafter on the basis of regularisation policy dated 23.1.2001, services of some of the workmen were regularised whereas that of the appellant was dispensed with. The Labour Court has found that the appellant had completed 240 days and there was violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court has also found that the appointment of the appellant was not in LPA No. 1097 of 2010 (O&M) consonance with the statutory rules governing the service and it was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. On that basis, reinstatement of the appellant was declined and instead a lump sum amount of Rs. 45,000/- was awarded for the service of two years and four months rendered by him. 3. Having heard learned counsel we are of the considered view that no ground for interference is made out. It is settled that if the Court finds that the workman is the beneficiary of the fraudulent system of employment or it is found that he is a back door appointee, the prayer for reinstatement may be refused even though the termination of the service of such an employee may have been brought about without compliance of the mandatory provisions. In that regard reliance may be placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Brij Bhushan v. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, (1998-2) 119 P.L.R. 818. 4. The only argument raised in support of the appeal is that there was another workman with the name of Shri Manohar Lal, who has rendered only 89 days service and has been regularised as Electrician from 12.12.2001. The aforesaid argument has been raised on the basis of a new document placed on record in the instant appeal, dated 8.2.2010 (P-1/C). The aforesaid document was neither placed before the Labour Court or before the learned Single Judge. In the instant appeal such a document cannot be made the basis for hearing the argument of discrimination. There may be umpteen reasons to retain the services of a person on the post of Electrician and not on the post of Peon. In any case such argument at this stage cannot be permitted to be raised. There is no merit in the appeal. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE 2 LPA No. 1097 of 2010 (O&M) (RITU BAHRI) September 6, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 3