C.W.P No.8653 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.8653 of 2000 Date of Decision: 01.09.2009 Executive Engineer Public Health Divn. No.1, Panipat .....Petitioner Versus Sat Pal and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl. A.G., Haryana for the petitioner. Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition challenges the order directing reinstatement, continuity of service and back wages. The workman who had been appointed as an Operator in the Public Health Department, Panipat on 09.08.1991 was terminated on 28.02.1993. The complaint by the workman was that he had worked for more than 240 days and the retrenchment made without serving notice or compensation was against law. The management took a stand that the workman had been engaged as a casual labour on muster roll "to complete some miscellaneous work and when the work was over the services of the petitioner were dispensed with." The workman had actually filed a writ petition before this Court seeking for regularization and this Court had disposed of the writ petition C.W.P No.8653 of 2000 -2- disallowing his plea but the at the same time observing that he shall not be terminated otherwise than by due process. The complaint of the workman was that he had been terminated from service in spite of the direction from the High Court that the procedure established by law was to be followed in case of termination. The Labour Court on evidence found that the workman had completed 240 days of continuous service preceding the date of termination on 28.02.1993 and found that there had been violation of law and granted the relief as stated above. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Public Works Department, Public Health submitted that the Labour Court had not given any specific finding as to the particular provisions of law that was found to be violated and it was also his contention that the casual labour whose services had been engaged for mere completion of some miscellaneous work ought not to have been directed to be reinstated. As a general proposition of law, the learned counsel would submit that in matters of public appointment where there is not known to be a specific post available, reinstatement ought not to be ordered, as a matter of course even if there is any statutory violation. 3. There is a clear evidence brought even through the document filed along with the writ petition by the petitioner that the workman had 240 days of service prior to the date of termination. Although the finding has been rendered to the effect that there had been a statutory violation of termination, but the only fact that the award does not make a reference to the specific legal provision, it does not make a difference for, it is obvious that the Labour Court C.W.P No.8653 of 2000 -3- ordering reinstatement was considering the plea of the workman as falling within the four corners of non-compliance of Section 25-F. There cannot be any difficulty in coming to a conclusion that there had been a statutory violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. The issue whether in matters of public appointment, there could be a direction for reinstatement of a daily rated worker cannot be answered as not feasible at all in all types of cases. The whole matter shall depend on the contention raised by the parties before the Labour Court and the specific violation of recruitment rules that the public authority complains as having taken place, which would justify turning down the plea for reinstatement. If the contention of the workman was that the workman had been merely engaged in some miscellaneous work, one would expect some details of what the miscellaneous work was and how it fell to be completed and the specific circumstances why a reinstatement would not be feasible. In this case, the evidence that was placed, on the other hand, was that a junior employee by name Naveen Kumar was given employment after the termination and he was also regularized in the service. It shall, therefore, not be permissible for the petitioner to plead that there was no work available or the work had ceased on completion of some miscellaneous work. Even the plea of the management that there was merely some miscellaneous work was too vague to find acceptance by the Labour Court. Again, it was a case where the Labour Court has observed that the termination had been done in brazen violation of the direction of the High Court and the Court in its order has also C.W.P No.8653 of 2000 -4- observed that the back wages shall be recovered from the particular officer who had terminated his service without following the due procedure. The direction for reinstatement has been given by the Labour Court on a consideration of the fact that (i) there has been a statutory non-compliance of Section 25-F; (ii) there was a deliberate brazen violation of the direction from the High Court; (iii) there had been a fresh employment offered to yet another person subsequently and regularization has also been done. The conduct of the Government functionaries in this case is not above board and the award passed, under such circumstances, in the manner it has been done, would require no intervention. 5. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 01, 2009 Pankaj*