IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 14491 of 2008. Date of Decision : March 06, 2009. The Management of Canara Bank, H.R.M. Section Circle Office, Chandigarh. .... Petitioner . Versus. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh, and another. ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Parveen Rohilla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Raj Kaushik, Advocate, for the respondent No. 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). Written statement on behalf of respondent No. 2-workman filed in the Court today, is taken on record. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 04.06.2007 (Anneuxre-P-4), passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh, vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the respondent No. 2-workman holding him entitled to reinstatement in service with 50% back wages alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. Counsel for the petitioner-management contends that the respondent No. 2-workman was appointed as a Coolie on casual basis and his services were terminated when his services were no more required. He C.W.P.No. 14491 of 2008. contends that even if the findings as recorded by the Labour Court, are taken to be correct, he had merely worked for almost three years with the petitioner-management and since the post on which he had been ordered to be reinstated in service was a public post which was not filled up as per statutory rules governing the service, and therefore, was not in consonance with the scheme and his appointment on public post was not as per the provisions of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the respondent No. 2-workman cannot be held to be reinstated in service. He further contends at the most for the termination of his service in violation of Industrial Disputes Act, the respondent No. 2-workman would be entitled to compensation as per the Judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Telecom District Manager and Others Versus Kesheb Deb, 2008 (4) S.C.T. 33, and the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another, 2008(3) S.C.T. 788. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent No. 2-workman contends that the award passed by the Labour Court, is fully justified and is in consonance with the scheme which does not call for any interference by this Court. Counsel for the petitioner-management further contends that the 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, has held that the post under the State is required to be filled up in terms of the Recruitment Rules and by inviting applications from all eligible -2- C.W.P.No. 14491 of 2008. candidates. The respondent No. 2-workman was engaged on casual basis without following the rules and principles of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore, even if the respondent No. 2-workman has completed 240 days of service, the said respondent No. 2-workman is not entitled to be reinstated and also for grant of back wages. The respondent No. 2-workman in the light of the Judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court referred to above, is not entitled to reinstatement against a public post nor he is entitled to any back wages. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Telecom District Manager and Others Versus Kesheb Deb (supra), and this Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another (supra), have held that although a daily wager may not be entitled to reinstatement but the respondent No. 2-workman would be entitled to compensation for wrongful termination of his services. The respondent No. 2-workman has worked with the petitioner-management from 01.05.1986 to 12.04.1989 , as per the award. In the light of the fact that the respondent No. 2-workman has no right for reinstatement in the light of above judgments, however, he is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 30,000/- to settle equities between the parties. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed, the award dated 04.07.2007 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh, is hereby set aside. The respondent No. 2-workman is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 30,000/- in lieu of his reinstatement. -3- C.W.P.No. 14491 of 2008. The petitioner-management is directed to release the said amount i.e. Rs. 30,000/- to the respondent No. 2-workman within a period of two month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The present writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 06, 2009. sjks. -4-