IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.420 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:21.1.2010 Ranbir Singh -----Appellant Vs. The Executive Engineer and another -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. N.K.Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant. --- Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the workman against order of learned Single Judge setting aside award for reinstatement with 50% back wages. 2. The workman was engaged on daily wages in the year 1992 and his services were terminated in the year 1999 against which the workman raised an industrial dispute alleging violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’). The dispute was referred for adjudication. The Labour Court, holding that LPA No.420 of 2009 (O&M) there was violation of section 25-F of the Act, directed reinstatement of the workman with 50% back wages. The management - State of Haryana challenged the award relying upon judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority and another v. Ashok Kuamr and another, (2008) 4 SCC 261, Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, (2008) 1 SCC 575, MP Administration v. Tribhuwan, (2007) 9 SCC 748 and State of MP and others v. Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007) 1 SCC 575. Learned Single Judge held that the workman having been engaged on daily wages without following mandate of Articles 14 and 16 could not be reinstated into service merely because he had completed 240 days of service. Accordingly, following above judgments, learned Single Judge set aside order of reinstatement but directed award of compensation of Rs.60,000/-. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to dispute applicability of the judgments relied upon in the 2 LPA No.420 of 2009 (O&M) impugned order of learned Single Judge. He, however submits that in the writ petition, prayer was only against grant of 50% back wages. Even if it was so, the submissions considered by learned Single Judge being purely legal, did not depend only on prayer in the petition. 5. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 6. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge January 21, 2010 (Alok Singh) ‘gs’ Judge 3