fa% 66W; {09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I”I‘ISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 3187 of2004 WRIT PE’I‘I’I‘ION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTETUTION OF INDLA» (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihoh‘i J.) Shn‘ M. P. S. Bhah‘a, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Piadeep Saxena, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. O R D E R (Passed on this 5th Day of March, 2009) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. The petitioners] State has nled this petition challenging the order dated 4.3.2004 (Annexure P] 1), passed by the Industrial Court, Raipur in Civil Appeal No. 106/ MPIR/A-l 1/2o03. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners] State submits that the respondent No.1 had tiled an application before the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon, submitg'ng that he was working as Labour in Public Works Department, Khanagarh Sub Division horn 1992 and continued till the year 1996. He performed more than 240 days work in every consecutive year, As the petitioner requested for his inclusion in permanent gang, he was disengaged since the year 1999. That application g Petitioners 1. State of Chhatu‘sgarh, tmnugh Secretarv Public Works Depmtment Mantralaif: Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Chiéf Enginecr, Public Works Dgpartment Khaimgarh, District ‘ Rajnandgaon, Chhath‘sgarh. Versus Respondents 1. Ramkumar Chandel, S/o Anuj Knmar through Navjeet Kumar Roman, Advocate, 25/ 12 Nehru Nagar (West) Bhilai (C.G.) 2. Presiding O$cer, Industrial Court, Raipur (C.G.) g® being Case No. 51/MPIR/98 was dismissed by order dated 4.3.2003. Being aggn’eved, the respondent No.1 had med Civil Appeal No. 106/M.P.l.R./A 11/2003 before the Industrial Court, wherein bv order dated 4.3.2004 it was held that the mspondent No.1 is entitled to reinstatement in service with 500/0 back wages. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners] State submits that in View of the fact that the appointment of the respondent No. 1 was not in accordance with law, the respondent No. 1 is not entitled to reinstatement or back Wages. 5. This case is covered by the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947, wherein it has been made clear that if the provisions of Section 25-13 have been complied with and the concerned empioyee/labour has worked for more than 240 days in a year, particularly in the preceding year, then he is entitled to retrenchment compensation before the order of retrenchment] removal is passed. 6, The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Sujanpur Vs. Surinder Kumarl held as under: “20. in the instant case, the respondent was appointed in violation of the rules. He was appointed at the instance of a Member of the Leg‘siative Assembly who was a Minister at the relevant time. No appointment could have been made at his instance. No authority howsoever high may be cannot (sic can) direct recruitment of persons of his choice. 21. Having regard to the factual circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that grant of i (2006) 5 SCC 173 yr r$_/ monetaly comp€nsation would subserve the ihtemsts of justice. We, therefom, allow the appeal and set aside the directions of the Labour Court and direct that in place of the mspondent being reinstated with back wages, the appellant would pay mommy compensation to him, quantified at Rs. 50,000] -. We make no order as to costs.” 7. Applying the wen settled principle of law, as enunciated by the Supreme Court, the impugned order dated 4.3.2004 (Annexure P] 1) of reinstatement of the petitioner with 50% back wages is not sustainable in law, as the petitioner was appointed on scheme daily wages basis, not in accordance with the constitutional of employment. Accordingly the impugned order dated 4.3.2004 is quashed. However, the petitioner is en 'tled to compensation as his retrenchment was in violation of the provisions of Section 25—F of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . The compensation is quantitied to a sum of Rs. 50,000] , to the respondent No.1 within a period of six Weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. payable 8. The petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. Thakux i Sdl— SatiSh K- Agnih°m Judge