CWP No. 4079 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 4079 of 2010 Date of decision: 09.03.2010 Jasbir Kumar son of Sh. Banarsi Dass ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh and another ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Harsh Bunger, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 20.11.2008 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, vide which the reference has been answered partly in favour of the workman holding his termination to be in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') but in lieu of reinstatement, he has been granted compensation amounting to Rs. 25,000/- for the period he had worked with the Management i.e. 11.07.1996 to 02.04.1997. CWP No. 4079 of 2010 2 Counsel for the petitioner contends that once a finding has been returned by the Labour Court that the provisions, as contained under Section 25-F of the Act, have not been complied with and the workman had completed more than 240 days in service in the preceding year from the date of his termination, the petitioner was required to be reinstated in service. He contends that the compensation also, which has been granted to the petitioner-workman, is too meager. He contends that the reference was made in September, 2000 and the said reference came to be decided only on 20.11.2008 i.e. after a period of more than 8 years. He, on this basis, contends that the amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. The finding although has been given by the Labour Court that the service of the workman was terminated not in consonance with and in accordance with the Industrial Disputes Act but keeping in view the fact that he was only appointed as a casual labour and that too, for a specified period i.e. 11.07.1996 to 02.04.1997, the reinstatement of the workman has not been ordered by the Labour Court. Although there was a contention of behalf of the workman that persons junior to the petitioner were retained in service and further appointments have been made for the same type of work yet no evidence was led by the workman nor the records of the Management were summoned. Even the persons, who he alleged are junior to him and have been appointed, have not been named in the evidence produced before the Labour Court. Keeping in view the totallity of the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the appointment of the workman, the Labour CWP No. 4079 of 2010 3 Court has proceeded to grant him compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for the period he had worked with the respondents i.e. 11.07.1996 to 02.04.1997. The Labour Court has also taken into consideration the fact that legal expenses have been incurred by the workman on account of illegal termination of his services by the Management because of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. All the relevant factors, which are involved for assessing the compensation, have been taken into consideration by the Labour Court and, therefore, no ground is made out for exercising the writ jurisdiction in the present case. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE March 09, 2010 pj