IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.16878 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 09.02.2010 Bachna Ram ....Petitioner(s) vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.J.S.Cooner, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Addl.Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside the Award dated 17.9.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Ambala vide which the reference made on a demand notice submitted by the workman-petitioner stands answered against him. Counsel for the petitioner contends that there is a categoric finding given by the Labour Court that the petitioner-workman was not terminated from service in accordance with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as he had worked with the respondent-Management in 12 preceding months from the date of his termination i.e. from 1.2.2004 to 31.1.2005. Counsel for the respondent-Management has submitted that as per the claim submitted by the petitioner-workman, his services were terminated in March 2005 and, therefore, the relevant period would be from C.W.P.No.16878 of 2009 -2- April 2004 to March 2005. There is no force in the contention as raised by counsel for the respondent-Management. Even if two months are deleted from the period which has been taken into consideration by the Labour Court, still the workman would have completed 10 months' service from the date of termination which would be much above the requisite period of 240 days in the 12 preceding months. It is, therefore, apparent that while terminating the services of the workman, the management was required to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. That having not been complied with, the termination of the services of the workman cannot be said to be in consonance with the provisions of the Act. Although it is an admitted position that the petitioner-workman was not appointed in consonance with the statutory Rules governing the service and, therefore, cannot be held entitled to reinstatement in service but still in the light of the fact that the services of the petitioner were terminated in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, he would be entitled to compensation for the period he had worked with the respondents. The petitioner had worked with the respondents from 1.7.1995 to 28.2.2005, meaning thereby that he had completed about 10 years in service with the respondent-Management. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and appropriate that a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is granted to the petitioner-workman for the period he had worked with the respondent-Management in lieu of reinstatement in service. Accordingly, the present petition is partly allowed; the Award C.W.P.No.16878 of 2009 -3- dated 17.9.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, is set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to compensation as assessed herein-above in lieu of reinstatement. The respondent- Management is directed to release the amount of compensation as assessed above to workman-petitioner within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. February 09, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE