IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No. 597 of 2009 and C.W.P. No. 2728 of 2008. Date of Decision : January 14, 2009. Jagtar Singh ..... Petitioner. Versus. Additional District and Sessions Judge- cum-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala. .... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). C.M. No. 597 of 2009. C.M. stands allowed. C.W.P. No. 2728 of 2008. In this writ petition, the award impugned herein is dated 05.12.2006 (Annexure-P-3), wherein the Labour Court, Ambala, vide its award dated 05.12.2006 has decided the reference against the workman by holding that the petitioner being a daily wage employee is not entitled to reinstatement in view of the fact that his services were terminated on the ground of registration of F.I.R. No. 70, dated 26.02.1995. It has been observed by the Court that the management cannot be forced to take back C.W.P. No. 2728 of 2008. an employee in whom the management has lost faith and confidence due to some omissions and commissions and on that basis the reinstatement of the petitioner has been declined. It is the submission of counsel for the petitioner that once the Court has come to finding that the petitioner has completed 240 days in the last 12 preceding calendar months before the date of termination of the petitioner and also having come to a finding that the termination of the petitioner was without issuing any chargesheet or conducting a departmental inquiry against him, the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement in service especially when the provisions of Section 25-F have not been complied with, which fact has been admitted by the respondents. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that provisions of Section 25-F would not be applicable as the petitioner was a daily wager and the appointment of the petitioner was not in consonance with the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. I have gone through the records of the case with the able assistance of counsel for the parties. The facts which come out are that the petitioner as a matter of fact completed 240 days in the last preceding calendar months from the date of his termination. It is also admitted that the petitioner was a workman with the respondents as Baildar since November, 1988, till the date of his termination i.e. 17.07.1995. It is also not disputed that the termination was on the basis of registration of F.I.R. No. 70, dated 26.02.1995. No chargesheet or inquiry was held before terminating the services of the petitioner which was in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. As a matter of fact, it has not been -2- C.W.P. No. 2728 of 2008. pleaded that which are the rules governing the services of Baildar which would govern the service of the petitioner. That being so the contention of counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted that the appointment of workman was in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is also not disputed that the petitioner was all through continuing in service since November, 1988, till the date of his termination i.e. 17.07.1995 and it is also not disputed that the work which he was performing continued till 17.07.1996, when the toll plaza, where the petitioner was employed, was handed over back to the National Highway Authority of India. In view of this, it cannot be said that the services of the petitioner were terminated as per the provisions of the contract which would fall within the definition of Section 2 (oo)(bb). If that being so then it would amount to retrenchment of the petitioner which would, therefore, attract the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. In view of the fact that the work on which the petitioner was continuing ceased w.e.f. 17.07.1996, the petitioner cannot be reinstated in service. Since there has been violation of the provisions of Section 25-F and work not being available with the respondents on which he was working it would be appropriate that compensation be granted to the petitioner. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Telecom District Manager and others Versus Keshav Dev, 2008(4) S.C.T. 33, has held that even, if the, provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with, the workman would be entitled to be paid just compensation. Since, the petitioner had worked with the respondents for a reasonable long period w.e.f. November, 1988, to July 1995, I am of the opinion that compensation of Rs. 50,000/- would be just and equitable to -3- C.W.P. No. 2728 of 2008. balance equity between the parties. The respondents are directed to release the compensation within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 14,2009. sjks. Whether refer to Reporters : Yes / No. -4-