IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.4891 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 04.05.2009 Urmila wife of Sh.Roop Chand ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Karan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the award dated 9.4.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Labour Court, Ambala vide which the reference has been answered against the workman holding him not entitled to reinstatement in service as she was a daily wager and not holding a regular post. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a categoric finding has been given in the award itself that the workman had worked for 267 days in the last 12 preceding calendar months prior to her date of termination on 28.12.2002 and, therefore, although the workman is not entitled to reinstatement in service in the light of the fact that she was appointed on daily wage basis but would be entitled to compensation in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of District Telecom Manager and others vs. Keshab Dev, 2008 (4) S.C.T.33 C.W.P.No.4891 of 2009 -2- and a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ishwar Singh and another, 2008 (3) S.C.T. 788. Counsel for the respondent is unable to rebut the finding given by the Labour Court with regard to the period of work the workman has put in with the Management and further that the workman had completed more than 240 days in the 12 preceding months. However, he submits that the award given by the Labour Court is fully justified and the reliance made by the Labour Court on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India are applicable to the facts of the case. He further submits that the award, therefore, being in consonance with law, deserves to be upheld. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The judgments relied upon by the Labour Court for coming to the conclusion may be applicable to the facts of the case and, therefore, in the light of those judgments, the workman would not be entitled to reinstatement in service. The only question which is left out would be that in the light of the fact that the workman has completed more than 240 days in the 12 preceding months, would she be entitled to compensation as the provisions as contained under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with. In view of Section 25-B of the Act, the workman had in fact completed 240 days and, therefore, was entitled to the protection under Section 25-F of the Act. This provision having not been complied with, the termination of the workman would be said to be not in consonance with the Act. As observed above, the workman worked with the Management from 1.10.1997 to 28.12.2002. In view of the judgment given by the Hon'ble C.W.P.No.4891 of 2009 -3- Supreme Court in District Telecom Manager's case (supra) and a Division Bench of this Court in Ishwar Singh's case (supra) where the termination of the workman was held to be not in consonance with the provisions as contained in the Act due to non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act, the petitioner-workman in this case would be entitled to compensation to balance the equities between the parties. Keeping this in mind, it would be just and appropriate that compensation of Rs.50,000/- be granted to the workman for the period of service she has put in with the respondent-Management. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-State to release the amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. A prayer has been made by the counsel for the petitioner that the workman would make a representation to the respondents and the same may be considered sympathetically. If such a representation is made, the same shall be considered sympathetically by the respondent-State. May 04, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No