IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1207 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 02.12.2009 The Associate Director (Training) and another. -----Appellants Vs. Baldev Singh and another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate for the appellants. --- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, directing payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent workman after recording a finding that termination of his services was in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act”). 2. The respondent worked on daily wage basis from March, 1994 to December, 1998. He raised an industrial dispute, alleging violation of Section 25-F of the Act, which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that since the workman was a daily wager and was appointed to a LPA No.1207 of 2009 public post without following any legal procedure, he was not entitled to any relief. Reliance was placed on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.P. Housing Board and another v. Manoj Shirvastava 2006 SCC (L&S) 422 and HUDA v. Jagmal Singh 2006 SCC (L&S) 1193. The workman filed writ petition in this Court and submitted that even if he was not entitled to reinstatement, he was entitled to compensation in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Telecom District Manager and others v. Keshab Deb 2008(8) SCC 402 and Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ishwar Singh and another 2008(3) SCT 788. Upholding the plea, learned Single Judge directed payment of Rs.50,000/- as compensation. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the workman himself had abandoned the job and he being a daily wager was not entitled to any relief. 5. We do not find any merit in the contention raised. Plea of abandonment of job has been rejected by learned Single Judge, after appreciating the facts. No doubt there are judgments holding that the workman may not be entitled to any relief if he was a daily wager, as violation of Section 25-F of the Act may not be involved, at the same time, in judgments relied upon by the learned Single, the workman has been entitled to compensation. Since the view taken by learned Single Judge is based on 2 LPA No.1207 of 2009 judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the relief granted is only compensation of Rs.50,000/-, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by learned Single Judge. 6. The appeal is dismissed. 7. Time for payment, as per direction of learned Single Judge, is extended by two months from today. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 02, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3