IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 4038 of 2009. Date of Decision : May 21, 2009. The Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial) Bhiwani, and another. ....... Petitioners. Versus. Smt. Phoolpati w/o Shri Ram Kumar, r/o V.P.O. Rawaldhi, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani, and another. ....... Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioners. Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate, for the respondent No. 1. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 07.04.2008 (Annexure-P-1), vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman, holding her entitled to reinstatement on previous post and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 05.12.2001. Counsel for the petitioner contends that even if the findings recorded by the Labour Court are taken to be correct, the order of reinstatement of the workman on her previous post, as has been ordered by the Labour Court, cannot be sustained for the reason that the workman was admittedly appointed as a Beldar-cum-Mali on daily wage basis. He submits that daily wager does not hold a post and, therefore, the award with regard to reinstatement cannot be sustained. He further contends that it is an admitted position that there is no assertion by the workman in her claim petition nor was C.W.P. No. 4038 of 2009. it stated in the statement before the Labour Court that she was appointed as per statutory rules governing the service and her appointment was on regular post after complying with the due procedure as prescribed for appointment on a public post. He contends that principles as laid down under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India with regard to appointment on public post also having not been complied with, the workman would not be entitled to reinstatement in the light of the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Ghaziabad Development Authority and another Versus Ashok Kumar and another, 2008(4) S.C.C. 261, Mahboob Deepak Versus Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, (2008) 1 S.C.C. 575, M.P. Administration Versus Tribhuwan, (2007) 9 S.C.C. 748, and State of M.P. and others Versus Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007) 1 S.C.C. 575. He on this basis contends that the impugned award cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases referred to above, the workman may not although be entitled to reinstatement in service but would be entitled to compensation for the period she had put in service with the petitioner-Management. He contends that a categoric finding has been given by the Labour Court that her termination from service was in violation of the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. He further contends that Industrial Disputes Act has been violated with impunity by the petitioner- Management and, therefore, compensation should be granted to the workman in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the -2- C.W.P. No. 4038 of 2009. case of Telecom District Manager and others Versus Kesheb Deb, 2008 (4) 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. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. In view of the admitted position that the services of the workman have been terminated without complying with the provisions as contained under the Industrial Disputes Act, the termination of service of the workman would, therefore, be in violation of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, in the light of the fact that the post on which the workman was ordered to be reinstated did not exist as it was a daily wage appointment, further to comply with the directions of reinstatement by the Labour Court would amount to putting her back in service on a public post which admittedly has not been filled in consonance with the statutory rules governing the service nor has the principles as mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India have been complied with for appointment on a public post, therefore, the workman would not be entitled to reinstatement. Keeping in view the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court referred to above by counsel for the petitioner, the award of the Labour Court impugned herein dated 07.04.2008 cannot be sustained. However, the workman would be entitled to compensation for the period she had put in with the petitioner-Management. A finding has been recorded by the Labour Court that the workman had continuously worked with the petitioner-Management from 01.12.1982 to 02.03.1999. In view of the continuous service put in by the -3- C.W.P. No. 4038 of 2009. workman and her termination being not in consonance with the Industrial Disputes Act, it would be just and equitable that compensation of Rs. 1,65,000/- be granted to the workman. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned award dated 07.04.2008 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, is hereby set aside. However, the workman is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,65,000/- to be paid to her within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of with above directions. Counsel for the respondent-workman states that in compliance with the award passed by the Labour Court, the workman has been taken back in service and she is continuing as such. He contends that she would be making a representation to the petitioner-Management which may be considered sympathetically. If such a representation is made, the same be considered sympathetically. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE May 21, 2009. sjks. Whether referred to the Reporter : Yes / No. -4-