IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.962 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.2.2011 Vijay Kumar -----Appellant. Vs. The Presiding Officer & others. -----Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge with a grievance that the appellant should be granted reinstatement instead of granting compensation of `60,000/- for violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act”). 2. The appellant-workman raised an industrial dispute stating that he served the management for more than 240 days but his services were terminated without complying with Section 25F of the Act. The dispute was referred for adjudication. The Labour Court held that though the workman worked for more than 240 days, he was not entitled to claim reinstatement to a public post in absence of appointment having been given after following LPA No.962 of 2010 due procedure. Reference was made to judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.C. Samrala v. Raj Kumar (2006) 3 SCC 81, RBI v. Gopinath Sharma (2006) 6 SCC 221, S.M. Nilajkar & Ors. v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 27, Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi v. State of Bihar AIR 1997 SC 3657, Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 533, Vikramaditya Pandey v. Industrial Tribunal and anr. AIR 2001 SC 672 and judgment of this Court dated 20.7.2007 in Tek Chand v. The Presiding Officer & ors. CWP No.18587 of 2004. 3. Learned Single Judge following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in District Telecom Manager v. Keshab Deb 2008(8) SCC 402 and judgment of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ishwar Singh & anr. 2008(3) SCT 788 held that the workman was entitled to `60,000/- as compensation. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana AIR 2010 SC 683 held that the award of the Labour Court for reinstatement was not liable to be interfered with in absence of a plea being taken before the Labour Court that the initial appointment to a public post was against rules. In that case, the workman had already been reinstated and having regard to peculiar facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the order of the High Court disturbing reinstatement was not called for. 2 LPA No.962 of 2010 In the present case, such plea was raised before the Labour Court and was upheld. 6. It is not disputed that as per the judgments relied upon by the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge, the petitioner cannot be reinstated. His argument before learned Single Judge was also for higher compensation only, as per judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Keshab Deb and of this Court in Ishwar Singh. 7. In view of above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE February 24, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3