IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11378 of 1988 Date of decision:10.07.2009 Baljeet Singh ...Petitioner versus M/s Punjab Brewaries Limited, Focal Point, Ludhiana ...Respondents and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Ms. Depinder Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. --- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The workman whose services were found to have been wrongly terminated by the Labour Court, was, however, found to be not entitled for reinstatement, but compensation of Rs.4,000/- was awarded. The aggrieved workman is the petitioner before this Court, challenging the award as contrary to law. 2. The management did not itself join issues on the correctness of the finding of the Labour Court that the termination was illegal. In arriving at the finding, the Labour Court had found that the workman had worked as an Assistant Fitter-cum-Operator, for a period of 4 ½ years and was getting Rs.500/- per month. The workman claimed that his services were terminated on 03.09.1982, when the management Civil Writ Petition No.11378 of 1988 - 2 - contended that the workman had abandoned his services on 17.08.1982. They had issued notices calling upon the workman to rejoin duty, but the notices were returned undelivered. The management made particular reference to the certified standing order which provided that in the event of workman not joining his duty after the expiry of leave or when he had not explained to the satisfaction of manager his inability to return on the expiry of the leave, the workman would lose his lien on his appointment and that he would be entitled to be kept on badli list where such a system was available or he shall be liable for termination in accordance with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. Admittedly, the termination order was issued even without reference to the standing order when the procedure as prescribed under Section 25-F had not been followed. The Labour Court made reference to decisions of this Court, while holding that even if there was a standing order that provided automatic termination of service rules of natural justice would have to be still followed. The termination without notice was, therefore, found to be bad in law. 3. While so observing, the Labour Court found termination of services was still not unjustified though was illegal being in violation of Section 25-F. The Labour Court always has the jurisdiction to award compensation instead of reinstatement. It should be on adequate grounds. The finding that the termination was not unjustified was against its own grain of reasoning that the management had not given any notice that was required in law. It is not merely a case of violation of law, but also unjust that the workman should have been Civil Writ Petition No.11378 of 1988 - 3 - turned out without reference to the standing order. The Labour Court ought to have ordered reinstatement under the circumstances, it had given no reasons as to how it found the termination to be justified. 4. The award was passed on 12.03.1987 and if he should be reinstated in service, it would mean rejoining of the service after a gap of more than 22 years. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the workman is 55 years of age and he will have only three years to serve. Even while finding that the order denying reinstatement is unjust, it would be unworkable at this length of time. Since I find that the workman would have been eligible for reinstatement, but for the fact of the long pendency of the case before this Court, for no fault of the workman, I deem it appropriate to enhance compensation to Rs. One Lakh, having due regard to 22 years of service lost. This enhancement becomes essential to even the scales on what was unjustly denied by the Labour Court in not ordering reinstatement, even when it found the termination to be illegal. 5. The award of the Labour Court is, accordingly, set aside and the compensation is enhanced to Rs.One lakh. It shall be bear interest of 7.5% per annum, from the date of order of this Court. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 10.07.2009 sanjeev