IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 7469 of 2009 Date of Decision : March 04, 2010. Vijay Kumar s/o Sh. Sammat Singh r/o H.No. 1253, Sector-11, Panchkula. ...... Petitioner. Versus. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, and others ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Jasmeet Singh Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.D.S. Hooda, Advocate, for respondents. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). Counsel for the petitioner/Workman (hereinafter referred to as “the Workman”) contends that a finding has been returned by the Labour Court that the Workman had worked with respondents/Management (hereinafter referred to as “the Management”) from 01.06.1998 to 31.12.2002 and had completed more than 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination, i.e., 01.01.2003, but still no benefit has been granted to him. A finding has also been returned by the Labour Court that no retrenchment compensation was paid to the Workman and, therefore, the provisions under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act) have not been complied with by the Management. He relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of District Telecom Manager and others Versus Keshab Dev, 2008 (4) C.W.P. No. 7469 of 2009. -2- S.C.T. 33 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another, 2008 (3) S.C.T. 788, to contend that where there is violation of Industrial Disputes Act, while terminating the services of Workman, the Workman would be entitled to compensation for the period he had worked with the Management in lieu of reinstatement. On the other hand, counsel for Management submits that, although, a finding to that effect has rightly not been returned by the Labour Court that the Workman had worked for a period as stated above, but still no compensation in lieu of reinstatement has been awarded. He, however, could not dispute the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of District Telecom Manager Versus Keshab Dev (supra), and a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another (supra). I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. A specific finding has been returned by the Labour Court that the Workman had worked with the Management from 01.06.1998 to 31.12.2002. In the light of aforementioned judgments, i.e., District Telecom Manager Versus Keshab Dev (supra), and a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another (supra), the Workman is entitled to compensation of Rs. 60,000/- for the period he had worked with the Management in lieu of reinstatement in service. The present petition is partly allowed. The Award is modified to the extent that the Workman would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 60,000/- in lieu of reinstatement in service for violation of Section 25-F of the Act by the Management, while terminating his services. A direction is issued C.W.P. No. 7469 of 2009. -3- to the Management to release the amount of compensation to the Workman within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 04, 2010. sjks.