IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6885 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.02.2009 State of Haryana through Executive Engineer, Water Services Division Kurukshetra (Haryana) .....PETITIONER VERSUS Chhoto Devi wife of Sh. Pala Ram and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Addl. A.G. Haryana, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S.Maanipur, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) The present writ petition has been filed by the State of Haryana challenging the award dated 12.08.2002 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Ambala, vide which the workman was ordered to be reinstated in service by giving benefit of continuity of service for non compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act by the petitioner- Management, Counsel for the petitioner concedes that as far as the question whether a part-time worker, within the definition of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, can be termed as a workman and as a consequence thereof, would be entitled to the protection of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. A. CWP No. 6885 of 2003 (O&M) -2- Sankaralingam, 2008 (4) SCT 373, against the petitioner and, therefore, the workman would be entitled to the benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, he contends that although a part-time worker may be getting the benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act but in the present case, he would not be entitled to the benefit of Section 25-F of the Act in view of the fact that the appointment of the workman would be covered under the exception of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act as the appointment was dehors the Rules covering the appointment and in violation of Section 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He further contends that since it is a public appointment, a proper procedure, which includes advertisement of posts or inviting applications for the appointment for the posts, which having not been complied with and further no assertion to that effect has been made by the workman in her claim petition that her appointment was in accordance with the Rules, therefore, although the workman would have completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months but still reinstatement cannot be granted and at the most, the workman would be entitled to only compensation in lieu of reinstatement in view of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana through Executive Engineer vs. Ishwar Singh and others, 2008 (3) SCT 789. Counsel for respondent No. 1 contends that in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court, in the case referred to above, the workman is entitled to reinstatement as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case upholding the judgment of Delhi High Court has not ordered that the workman would not be reinstated in service. I have considered the arguments put forth by the counsel for the parties. After perusing the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme CWP No. 6885 of 2003 (O&M) -3- Court, reliance whereof has been made by the counsel for the workman, I am of the considered view that the question with regard to reinstatement was not discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment. The only question, which has been adjudicated upon, was with regard to the question as to whether a part-time worker would be covered within the definition of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act to be termed as a workman and whether he would be entitled to the benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the judgment, which has been relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, the question has been dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in detail with regard to the right of a person for reinstatement when his appointment was dehors the Rules as in the present case and this Court come to a definite conclusion that the workman would only be entitled to compensation to be assessed by the Court in lieu of reinstatement. Following the judgment passed by this Court in the case of State of Haryana through Executive Engineer vs. Ishwar Singh and others (supra), the workman having completed four and half years of service with the petitioner and further being a part-time worker, would be entitled to Rs. 35,000/- as compensation. In the light of the above, the award dated 12.08.2002 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Ambala with regard to the reinstatement of the workman is set aside and the workman is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 35,000/-. The petitioner is directed to release the amount of compensation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE February 04, 2009 pj