IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 2725 of 2009. Date of Decision : February 20, 2009. Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidhyalaya, Devrala, .... Petitioner. District Bhiwani. Versus. Shri Subey Singh and another. ...Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. Sandeep Bharadwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present case, the challenge is to the award dated 13.08.2008 (Anneuxre-P-1), passed by the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I at Chanidgarh, wherein the reference was decided by holding the workman entitled to the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for non compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the services of the workman were terminated as per his terms of appointment and therefore, the termination of the workman would be covered by the provisions of Section 2 (oo) clause (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He further contends that the post on which the workman was engaged, sanction was not received for C.W.P. No. 2725 of 2009. continuous working, therefore, the petitioner has no option but to dispense with his services. I have gone through the records of the case and the impugned award. A categoric finding has been given to the effect that the workman has indeed worked for 240 days continuously in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. Since the services of the workman have been terminated although it is alleged to be in compliance with the order of his appointment but a perusal of the award would show that infact his services were desired by the petitioner-management and he was sought to be regularised on the said post. Having not received the sanction, the services of the workman have been dispensed with. This would not fall within the terms of the appointment which has been placed on record as Annexure-P-2 and Annexure-P-4 which are appointment letters issued to the respondent- workman. In any case, the respondent-workman has not been reinstated in service for non compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and has only been granted compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for wrongful termination. No ground for interference by this Court is made out. The present writ petition stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE February 20, 2009. sjks. -2-