LPA No. 534 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 534 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: December 2, 2009 Anil Kumar ...Appellant Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. A.K. Goyat, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ORDER 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge, setting aside the award of the Labour Court reinstating the appellant with full backwages and instead directing to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the appellant. 2. The appellant was employed on daily wage basis from 1.6.1995 to 31.7.1996, after which his services were discontinued. He raised industrial dispute, alleging violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. 3. The Labour Court held that since there was violation of Section 25-F of the Act, the workman was entitled to reinstatement with backwages. The respondent—management filed writ petition in this Court which has LPA No. 534 of 2009 2 been allowed by learned Single Judge, relying on Division Bench of this Court in State of Haryana versus Ishwar Singh and another 2008 (3) S.C.T. 788. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the workman was entitled to reinstatement with backwages, as rightly held by the Labour Court. He placed reliance on judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vikramaditya Pandey v. Industrial Tribunal and another AIR 2001 Supreme Court 672, Manager, R.B.I., Bangalore versus S.Mani and others A.I.R. 2005 Supreme Court 2179, State of Punjab & Ors versus Des Bandhu 2007 (9) S.C. C. 39 and Div. Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus A. Sankaralingam 2008 (10) S.C.C. 698 and judgment of this Court in CWP 6673 of 2006 (Range Forest Officer, Rewari and another versus Sh. Ram Chander and another) decided on 2.9.2009. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- management relied on judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Telecom District Manager and other versus Keshab Deb 2008 (8) S.C.C. 402 and Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Om Pal AIR 2008 Supreme Court 475 and judgment of this Court in Ishwar Singh (supra). 7. Admittedly, appointment of the appellant was on daily wage basis on a public post and his services were discontinued in terms of contract of employment. Period of his service was about one year. In such circumstances, it could not be held that the workman was entitled to reinstatement as held by this Court in Ishwar Singh (supra), following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, 2008 SCC 575 (para 5). At best the workman could LPA No. 534 of 2009 3 get compensation. Learned Single Judge has accordingly awarded compensation, as aforesaid. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to distinguish the judgment relied upon by learned Single Judge. Judgments relied upon by the appellant are distinguishable as therein effect of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Secretary, State of Karnataka V. Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1 has not been considered, except in Range Forest Officer (supra) which is a judgment of learned Single Judge. The said judgment is contrary to law laid down in Ishwar Singh (supra) which is a judgment by a Division Bench. Judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent support the view taken in the impugned judgment. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 10. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 2, 2009 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE