LPA No. 1869 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1869 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision 03.01.2011 Chandigarh Transport Undertaking -----Appellant Versus Presiding Officer and another ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 13.05.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge. The Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge have categorically held that the services of the workman were terminated illegally without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act'). The workman stated to have completed 240 days preceding the date of his termination. It has also been found that the workman was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and was duly interviewed. He fulfilled the requisite qualifications of driver and thereafter was appointed as Driver by the management on 11.12.1996. Accordingly, he was reinstated with immediate effect LPA No. 1869 of 2010 (O&M) -2- granting benefit of continuity of service. The workman was also held entitled for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in lieu of backwages. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that the findings recorded by the Labour Court as well as by the learned Single Judge do not warrant interference of this Court. It is well settled that if the workman has been removed from service without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act then reinstatement should follow the question of backwages would be dependent on facts and circumstances of each case. In that regard reliance may be placed on a judgment rendered in the case of Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula and another 2008(1) SCT 310. 3. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 4. In view of the writ petition which has been dismissed on merit, we are not inclined to pass any order on the application seeking condonation of delay of 170 days in filing of the appeal. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE January 3, 2011 Atul