IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 18157 of 2008 Date of decision: 24.04.2009 Divisional Forest Officer, (Territorial), Forest Division, Hisar .....PETITIONER VERSUS Mahabir sone of Sh. Subaram and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Arora, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Written statement on behalf of respondent No. 1 has been filed in the Court and the same is taken on record. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 15.02.2007 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman holding him entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 18.09.2000 till the date of publication of award and full wages thereafter till reinstatement. Counsel for the petitioner contends that even if the finding, as recorded by the Labour Court although which is based on an adverse CWP No. 18157 of 2008 -2- inference drawn against the Management because of non-production of the records, is taken to be correct, the workman cannot be reinstated in service in the light of the fact that the post, on which the workman has been ordered to be reinstated, is a public post, which was not filled in accordance with the Statutory Rules governing the service. He further contends that the scheme, as envisaged under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India with regard to filling up of public posts, also having not been complied with, the reinstatement of the workman is not in accordance with law. He relies upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ghazibad Development Authority and another vs. Ashok Kumar and another, 2008 (4) SCC 261, Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, (2008) 1 SCC 575, M.P. Administration vs. Tribhuwan, (2007) 9 SCC 748 and State of M.P. and others vs. Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007) 1 SCC 575 On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 1 contends that the provisions, as contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, having not been complied with and the findings to that effect having come on record, the award, as passed by the Labour Court, does not call for any interference by this Court. He further contends that even if the workman cannot be reinstated in service as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court but nevertheless the workman would be entitled to compensation in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Telecom District Manager and others vs. Keshab Deb, 2008 (4) SCT 33 and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ishwar Singh and another, 2008 (3) SCT 788. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. CWP No. 18157 of 2008 -3- In the light of the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, the impugned award dated 15.02.2007 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, cannot be sustained as the workman cannot be reinstated in service as the appointment of the workman was not in consonance with the Statutory Rules governing the service. It is also the stand of the petitioner that the post, on which the workman was appointed, was not a permanent post and the appointment of the workman was on daily wage basis. This finding has also been recorded by the Labour court and, therefore, the workman cannot be ordered to be reinstated in service. Keeping this in view, the impugned award stands set aside. However, in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Telecom District Manager and others vs. Keshab Deb, 2008 (4) SCT 33 and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ishwar Singh and another, 2008 (3) SCT 788, the workman is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 90,000/- in the light of his length of service with the Management and for the reason that the service of the workman was terminated without following the provisions, as contained in the Industrial Disputes Act. A direction is issued to the petitioner to release the amount of compensation, as assessed, within a period of two months' from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE April 24, 2009 pj Whether referred to Reporters.................Yes/No.