IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2113 of 1999 Date of decision:20.07.2009 District Welfare Officer and others ...Petitioners versus Kuljit Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Sharvan Sehgal, Advocate, for the respondent. --- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the award passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the workman, who claimed to be working as Warden in the hostel run by the Department of Social Welfare. The Labour Court held that the order of termination had not been served on him as it bore the address which was different from what was found in the demand notice and therefore, such a termination that violated Section 25-F, was not valid and not enforceable. 2. The Labour Court while accepting the reference and holding in favour of the workman, held that the management witness that gave evidence in chief-examination that the hostel had been closed was not available for cross-examination and making reference to the statement of the workman that there were two other persons who had been juniors in rank and whose services were retained, direct reinstatement. Civil Writ Petition No.2113 of 1999 - 2 - 3. The learned counsel Ms. Chhibbar, appearing on behalf of the State, would contend that under Pre-matric Scholarship Scheme, hostel for the children of conservation staff was being run, but it was later withdrawn and the persons that had been appointed, could not be continued in their employment. To make good for the lack of evidence before the Labour Court, the Government filed an affidavit through the District Welfare Officer before this Court along with C.M. No.928 of 2005 where it was averred that the hostel in which the first respondent had been engaged as a Warden, had come to an end and closed on 30.09.1997. She also brings to my attention the order of appointment made on 29.04.1993 which clearly stipulated that the services are purely temporary and the services could be terminated at any time without any notice. Having regard to the nature of employment in a public office, the continuance of employment by directing reinstatement, was not justified. It was also argued that the Labour Court was not justified in finding that the termination notice and the compensation amount that was sent could not have been sent by the only fact that the address was different from what was stated in the demand notice. There has been a factual finding that the notice had not been sent and that there had been no compliance of Section 25-F. I affirm the finding that there had been no compliance of Section 25-F. 4. Even if there had been no compliance, it still has to be seen whether the workman was entitled to be reinstated. Having regard to the nature of engagement as temporary and having further regard to the statement of the counsel appearing for the Government supported Civil Writ Petition No.2113 of 1999 - 3 - through an averment in CM No.928 of 2008 that the scheme itself had been closed and there was no scope for continuance of such employment, I find that it would be futile to direct reinstatement. Further the learned counsel relies on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court rendered on 27.09.1996 that dealt with the termination of services of the workman in the same scheme, where the Division Bench of this Court held that the appointment had been illegal and that there was no scope for retaining them in service. This judgment lends credibility to what is contained in CM No.928 of 2008 that the scheme had been stopped by the Union Government. 5. On the evidence that the workman had been engaged from 12.08.1991 to 31.03.1993 and again on 29.04.1993 to 26.05.1993, the only relief that the petitioner could be declared entitled by virtue of the fact that he had served for nearly two years and further having regard to the hopes that he might have cherished getting back his employment by virtue of the order which stood in the way by the pendency of the writ petition for nearly a decade, a compensation of Rs.30,000/- in my view, would meet the end of justice. The order of the Labour Court is set aside and the workman shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.30,000/- which shall be paid within two months from the receipt of this order, failing which the same will bear simple interest of 7.5% per annum. 6. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 20.07.2009 sanjeev