IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.11919 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 25.03.2010 Lekh Raj ....Petitioner(s) vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Gurgaon and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Shiv Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Addl.A.G., Haryana, for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside the Award dated 29.8.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court-I, Gurgaon, wherein the reference has been answered against the workman holding him not entitled to reinstatement in service on the ground that his appointment was de hors the Statutory Rules governing the service and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the petitioner contends that a categoric finding has been given by the Labour Court that the workman has completed 240 days in service in 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. He, therefore, contends that even if the appointment of the petitioner was not in consonance with the Statutory Rules governing the service, still as the services of the petitioner were terminated in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he would be entitled to compensation if C.W.P.No.11919 of 2009 -2- not reinstatement in service. For this contention, he relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of District Telecom Manager and others vs. Keshab Dev, 2008 (4) S.C.T.33 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ishwar Singh and another, 2008 (3) S.C.T. 788. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the finding as recorded by the Labour Court clearly spells out that the appointment of the petitioner was de hors the Statutory Rules governing the service. His contention is that as per the demand notice, the workman himself had stated that he was appointed by the Block Development & Panchayat Officer as a driver with effect from 4.10.2002 whereas the Statutory Rules governing the service i.e. Haryana Development and Panchayats Department (Group C) Service Rules, 1980, in Appendix C shows that the Authority entitled to appoint a driver is the Deputy Secretary. He, on this basis, contends that the Award passed by the Labour Court is fully justified. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. In the light of the fact that the appointment of the petitioner-workman was de hors the Statutory Rules governing the service and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner would not be entitled to reinstatement in service. However, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Keshab Dev's case (supra) and a Division Bench of this Court in Ishwar Singh's case (supra), as the termination of the services of the petitioner was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, the petitioner is held entitled to compensation C.W.P.No.11919 of 2009 -3- which is assessed at Rs.25,000/-, keeping in view the fact that he has worked with the respondents from 4.10.2002 to 16.12.2004. Accordingly, the present writ petition is partly allowed; the impugned Award dated 29.8.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Gurgaon, is modified to the extent that the petitioner is held entitled to compensation of Rs.25,000/- for violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 while terminating his services. The amount of compensation as assessed above, shall be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. March 25, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE