IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 18546 of 2008. Date of Decision : April 21, 2009. Shiv Kumar. ....... Petitioner. Versus. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala, and others. ....... Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Mukand Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Madhu Dayal, Advocate, for the respondents. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 03.04.2008 (AnnexureP-9), vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman, holding therein that the workman shall be granted a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 5,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the workman was an outsee and on this basis he was appointed with the respondents w.e.f. 01.08.1983, he continued to work upto 31.05.1984 when his services were terminated without assigning any reason or giving any notice or complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He contends that the findings as recorded by the Labour Court to that effect instead of granting him reinstatement, a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 5,000/- has been granted by the Labour Court. C.W.P. No. 18546 of 2008. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand states that although the workman has contended that he is an oustee and he was appointed as per the policy of the Board but the said fact was denied by the Board and a finding was given by the Labour Court that there was no policy or his appointment was in consonance with the policy of the Board. In the light of the judgments passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as his appointment was not in consonance with the statutory rules governing the service instead of granting him reinstatement, a lump-sum compensation has been granted to the workman keeping in view that he had merely worked for a short period with the respondent-management. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The factual position as asserted by counsel for the petitioner with regard to the workman being appointed as an oustee because his land was acquired by the respondent-management for constructing thermal plant, has not been proved nor has the same been accepted by the Labour Court. It is not in dispute that the services of the workman were not in consonance with the statutory rules, governing the service. 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 candidates. The workman was engaged on daily wages without following the rules and principles -2- C.W.P. No. 18546 of 2008. of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore, even if the workman has completed 240 days of service, the said workman is not entitled to be reinstated and also for grant of back wages. The 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 is he entitled to any back wages. In the light of the said judgments, the Labour Court has rightly not granted reinstatement to the workman. This is fully justified for the reason that the initial appointment of the workman was not in consonance with the statutory rules, governing the service and provisions as contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India have not been complied with which mandated calling of applications by way of advertisement or other means giving an opportunity to others to participate in the selection process and there being a selection process for appointment as per statutory rules, there is nothing on record to show that indeed the appointment of the workman was as per the statutory rules. That being the position and the workman having worked with the respondent-management from 01.08.1983 to 31.05.1984, the workman would be entitled to compensation as he had completed more that 240 days with the respondent-management. The Labour Court having given a finding that the provisions as contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, having not been complied with, the workman would be entitled to compensation. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Telecom District Manager and Others Versus Kesheb Deb, 2008 (4) S.C.T. 33, and a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another, 2008(3) S.C.T. 788, has further held that in case there is violation of provisions of -3- C.W.P. No. 18546 of 2008. Industrial Disputes Act and the appointment of the workman was not in consonance with the statutory rules, the workman instead of being reinstated, should be compensated for the period he had put in with the respondent- management for non compliance of the Industrial Disputes Act. That being so, the workman having completed almost one year of service with the respondent-management, it would be just and appropriate that compensation be enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- from Rs. 5,000/-, as granted by the Labour Court. Counsel for the respondent-management states that initially an amount of Rs. 5,000/-, as awarded was deposited with the Labour Court. The workman did not claim the same and the same has been returned back to the respondent-management. A direction is issued to the respondent- management to release the amount as assessed by this Court i.e. Rs. 10,000/- to the workman within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE April 21, 2009. sjks. Whether referred to the Reporter – Yes / No. -4-