IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 7368 of 2009. Date of Decision : May 15, 2009. Gurjant Singh. ....... Petitioner. Versus. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala, and others. ....... Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate and, Mr. H.S. Deol, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 09.06.2008 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the Labour Court, Patiala, vide which after giving a finding that the workman had completed more than 240 days with the respondent-management proceeded to decide the matter and assessed the compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for the period he had worked with the Management and also taking into consideration the period spend on litigation. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the finding given by the Labour Court with regard to the fact that no evidence has been led by the workman to prove that juniors to him had been retained, is not justified for the reason that he had specifically asserted that Shri Lachhman Dass, Shri Jagsir Singh and Balwinder Singh were engaged by the Civil Surgeon, Sangrur, as Class-IV employees after the termination of the workman. He C.W.P. No. 7368 of 2009. relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Dilbagh Singh, 2006 (4) Law Herald (S.C.) 3301, to contend that when a person junior to the workman had been retained with the department whereas the service of the workman had been terminated, reinstatement of the workman is justified. He further prays that amount of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- granted by the Labour Court is too meager which should be enhanced. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case as well as the impugned award. The facts as would come out from the pleadings and the award would be that the workman was appointed as a Ward Attendant by the respondent department on 89 days basis. Although, the period for which the workman had been engaged was disputed as it was alleged by the Management that he had not continuously worked with the Management from 02.05.1996 to 11.02.1997 as alleged by the workman and had only worked for 208 days with the respondent-department but due to the non- production of the records by the Management and non-leading of evidence to that effect, a finding has been recorded by the Labour Court that the workman had completed more than 240 days. Since, no notice or inquiry or compensation was granted to the workman, therefore, the provisions as contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with. On this basis, the Labour Court had thereafter proceeded to grant the workman compensation as it is an admitted position that the workman was not appointed on regular post nor was his appointment as per statutory rules governing the service. In the light of the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, reliance whereon has been placed by the Labour -2- C.W.P. No. 7368 of 2009. Court, the workman was not reinstated in service but was granted compensation taking into consideration the factums relevant for granting the same i.e. length of service and period of litigation. As regards the claim of the workman that since juniors to him had been retained in service or had been appointed after his termination that would give a right of reinstatement in service to the workman being in violation of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act also does not hold good in view of the principles as culled out by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Ghaziabad Development Authority and another Versus Ashok Kumar and another, 2008(4) S.C.C. 261, Mahboob Deepak Versus Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, (2008) 1 S.C.C. 575, M.P. Administration Versus Tribhuwan, (2007) 9 S.C.C. 748, and State of M.P. and others Versus Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007) 1 S.C.C. 575. In the light of the above position in law, the reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Dilbagh Singh (supra), by counsel for the petitioner would not help him. After considering the legal position and the facts in the present case, I am of the considered view that the award passed by the Labour Court, is fully justified and does not call for any interference by this Court. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE May 15, 2009. sjks. Whether referred to the Reporter - Yes / No. -3-