CWP No.6179 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No.6179 of 2009 Date of decision July 27, 2009 The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Haryana, Panchkula and others ....... Petitioners Versus Mohinder Singh and another. ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. D. S. Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Sonak , Advocate for respondent Nos.2. **** 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The writ petition challenges the order directing reinstatement of a workman who had admittedly worked as a Beldar-cum- Mali in the department of Forest when the Labour Court had directed reinstatement with 40% back wages. The contention of the workman is that he had been in continuous employment from 1.7.1990 till 31.12.1996 when his services were illegally terminated. The Management took a defence that there had been no continuous engagement and that he had been merely engaged as a daily rated worker on various spells and he did not have 240 days continuous service prior to his disengagement on 31.12.1996. The Management had been directed to produce the record CWP No.6179 of 2009 2 on a notice moved by the workman but such evidence was not forthcoming on a plea by the Management that the records had been destroyed in floods in the year 1995. Even for the subsequent period Management had not produced any record. 2. The Labour Court drew adverse inference on non- production of records and directed reinstatement. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in case of public employment there ought to be a valid basis for appointment and if there had been violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution and even non-compliance of Section 25-F ought not to result in right of reinstatement to a workman. Cases of daily rated workers in several cases by the Hon'ble Supreme Court following Secretary, State of Karnatka Vs. Umadevi and 2006 (4) SCC 1 and several other decisions, hold that if there had been non-compliance of Section 25-F reinstatement shall not be ordered as a matter of course. The appropriate relief to the workman shall be by compensating him for the loss of his employment which under the circumstances, for these years of his service, I estimate to be Rs.60,000/-. The award of the Labour Court is set aside and modified. The amount is to be paid within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which it shall carry simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the workman states that he has been subsequently reinstated. This order addresses the issue relating to right of reinstatement as found in the order of the Labour Court and makes a modification in that regard. If the reinstatement was effected only pursuant to the order of the Labour Court, the order in this writ petition passed subsequently shall vacate such a right. The compensation awarded cannot be operative without the workman giving up the employment obtained pursuant to the order of Labour Court. 4. It is always open to the Management to make CWP No.6179 of 2009 3 such form of engagement of the workman as it is permissible by rules. 5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. . (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 27, 2009 archana