C.W.P No.5128 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.5128 of 1999 Date of Decision:24.07.2009 State of Haryana .....Petitioner Versus Mahabir and others ...Respondents Present: Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl. A.G., Haryana for the petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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 award under challenge is a direction by the Labour Court for reinstatement of the workman. The reference had been sought at the instance of the workman, who complained that he had been terminated on 01.01.1995 without complying with the requirements of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to him, he was working as Fitter from 16.04.1993 in the Transport Department and he had, before the order of termination, completed 240 days of continuous service and hence, the termination was bad. 2. The management disputed the contention that the workman had been appointed as Fitter on 16.04.1993 but stated that the workman had been employed as a seasonal Water Carrier from C.W.P No.5128 of 1999 -2- 16.04.1993 to 15.09.1993 and after a break in service, he had been engaged as a Helper on 07.12.1993, which post he held till 31.10.1994. According to the management, that post had been offered to him during the time when there was strike amongst the regular workers and when the strike was recalled and the regular workers rejoined their posts, he had been terminated from service. 3. The management also placed in evidence the fact that the State of Haryana had taken a policy to offer employment to persons, who had been serving during the strike period and such an offer was also made to the workman by the letter dated 26.07.1995 directing to join the post at Panipat. He had not joined there and therefore, the workman was not entitled to any reliefs as sought for by him. 4. Before the Labour Court, the workman contended that the manager at Panipat did not allow him to join, although he reported before him. The Labour Court, however, rejected the contention by finding that the evidence did not evoke confidence and held that the offer had been really spurned off by the workman. On the other hand, finding that the workman had completed 240 days, the Labour Court declared that the termination of the workman was bad and directed reinstatement. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the management contended that if the workman had been terminated without notice as required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, still he is not entitled to reinstatement. According to him, the reinstatement did not automatically follow by the fact that the person that held the post prior to the strike and who had a right to the post, after the strike was called C.W.P No.5128 of 1999 -3- off, had in fact joined and therefore, there was no post to which the workman could be reinstated. After all, the workman had a right to be consindered only to the job that he was offered and if he had not taken that job, he cannot seek for reinstatement on the same post on which he was working since such a post did not exist for his reinstatement. 6. I find the contention of the learned State Counsel to be perfectly justified for, even for a statutory non-compliance of Section 25-F, a right of reinstatement is not always a necessary corollary. If the post did not exist at that depot and when it was also brought out when the Labour Court had also entered a finding that he had denied himself of the employment which was offered to him, the only relief that the workman would be entitled, would be compensation for non- compliance of the requirements of Section 25-F. It is an admitted fact that the workman had served from 07.12.1993 to 31.10.1994 and having regard to the relevant circumstances, I am of the view that the workman would be entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/-. 7. The order of the Labour Court is set aside and modified to accommodate for only a relief of compensation as indicated above. The writ petition is ordered in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 24, 2009 Pankaj*