IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 6204 of 2005. Date of Decision : January 29, 2009. State of Punjab and others ..... Petitioners. Versus. Shri Kanshi Ram and another .... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. Vijay Kumar Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the petitioners. Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate, for the respondent No. 1. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present petition, the prayer is for quashing of the award dated 05.04.2004 (Annexure-P-9), passed by the Labour Court, Jalandhar, vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman with a direction to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and all other service benefits and full back wages and with further direction that the case of the workman for regularisation as Baildar be considered and an appropriate order be passed within a period of two months from the date of the order. Counsel for the petitioners has contended that even if findings which have been recorded by the Labour Court is accepted then the workman is not entitled for reinstatement in the service in view of the fact that it is a public post and it has neither been alleged by the petitioner that the initial appointment of the workman was as per statutory rules governing the service nor has it been asserted that any selection process had gone into or the other people were given opportunity to compete with him. He submits that Articles C.W.P. No. 6204 of 2005. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore, have been violated and initial appointment being in violation of the Constitution and with non compliance of the statutory Rules governing the service, the reinstatement of the workman by way of award is totally illegal. Counsel for the respondent No. 1 contends that the pleadings were there that the persons junior to him have been retained in service, and therefore, there is violation of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. He further admits that the statutory rules governing the service were not complied with initially as he was appointed on daily wage basis. Counsel for the State relies on the Judgments passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in cases reported Ghaziabad Development Authority and another Versus Ashok Kumar and another, 2008(4) S.C.C. 261, Mahboob Deepak Versus Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, (2008) 1 S.C.C. 575, M.P. Administration Versus Tribhuwan, (2007) 9 S.C.C. 748, and State of M.P. and others Versus Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007) 1 S.C.C. 575, to contend that the post under the State is required to be filled up in terms of the Recruitment Rules and by inviting applications from all eligible candidates. It has been contended that the respondent-workman was engaged on daily wages without following the rules and principles of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore, even if the respondent-workmen has completed 240 days of service, the said respondent-workman is not entitled to be reinstated and also for grant of back wages. He submits that the respondent-workman in the light of the Judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court referred to above, is not entitled to reinstatement against a public post nor he is entitled to any back wages. -2- C.W.P. No. 6204 of 2005. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the workman was employed on purely daily wage basis on a fixed salary w.e.f. February, 1994. He submits that at the most the workman would be entitled to compensation for the period he has worked with the petitioner but he cannot be reinstated in service in the light of Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another, 2008(3) S.C.T. 788. The Division Bench of this Court has held that a daily wage employee even in case there is non compliance of the Act and there is violation of Sections 25-F, 25-G, and 25-H is not entitled to reinstatement but would be entitled to compensation. In the said Judgment, this Court was pleased to grant compensation to the workman. Following the Judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another (supra), the award dated 05.04.2004 (Annexure-P-9), passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar, is hereby set aside. The workman has worked with the respondents from February, 1994 to 23.04.1999 more than five years and is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to settle the equities between the parties. A direction is issued to the petitioner to make the payment of the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- within a period of two months from today. This petition stands disposed of accordingly. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 29,2009. sjks. -3-