IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 13506 of 2008 . Date of Decision : March 30, 2009. The Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Public Health, Water Division, Jhajjar, and another. ...... Petitioners. Versus. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, and another. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioners. Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate, for the respondent No. 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 15.11.2007 (Annexure-P-6) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman holding him entitled to reinstatement in service on his previous post with continuity of service and 50 per cent back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 30.11.1999. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, cannot be sustained. He submits that the services of the workman was terminated on the basis of a criminal case registered against him. He contends that since it was a case of punishment, therefore, the workman would not be entitled to protection of Section 25-F of C.W.P. No. 13506 of 2008. the Industrial Disputes Act. He further contends that the termination of services of the workman would not be covered by the definition of retrenchment as contained in Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent contends that if the termination of the service of the workman was a punishment as asserted by counsel for the petitioner then the principles of natural justice were required to be complied with. It is an admitted position that neither show cause notice was issued nor any inquiry was held, therefore, the termination of the workman without holding such inquiry or complying with the mandate which calls upon the management to follow the principles of natural justice, cannot be said to be in accordance with law. This contention of counsel for the respondent does carry weight as the evidence which has been produced before the Labour Court and the pleadings clearly indicate and show that no notice for initiating disciplinary proceedings, no inquiry, no show cause notice was ever issued to the workman to call upon him to respond to the mis-conduct attributed to him. That being the position, the order of termination of the workman, cannot be said to be in consonance with the order of termination. Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioner contends that since it is a public post and the same having not been filled up in consonance with the statutory rules governing the service as mandated under the constitutional scheme for filling up the public post, the award regarding reinstatement of the workman cannot be sustained. He relies upon 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, -2- C.W.P. No. 13506 of 2008. (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, wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that the post under the State is required to be filled up in terms of the Recruitment Rules and by inviting applications from all eligible candidates. The workman-respondent was engaged on daily wages without following the rules and principles of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore, even if the workman-respondent has completed 240 days of service, the said workman-respondent is not entitled to be reinstated and also for grant of back wages. The respondent No. 2.-workman in the light of the Judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court referred to above, is not entitled to reinstatement against a public post nor is he entitled to any back wages. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 relying upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Telecom District Manager and others Versus Kesheb Deb, 2008 (4) S.C.T. 33, and Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another, 2008(3) S.C.T. 788, contends that the workman is entitled to compensation in case he is not entitled to reinstatement as the provisions as provided under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Telecom District Manager and others Versus Kesheb Deb (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 held entitled to compensation. Since the workman has worked from 01.07.1993 to 03.02.1999 i.e. for more than five years five months as per the award, the -3- C.W.P. No. 13506 of 2008. workman is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 55,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. The present writ petition is allowed. The impugned award dated 15.11.2007 (Annexure-P-6), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Rohtak, is set aside. The workman is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 55,000/-. The management-petitioner is directed to release the said amount i.e. Rs. 55,000/- to the respondent No.2-workman within a period of two month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The present writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 30, 2009. sjks. -4-