IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 3536 of 2009. Date of Decision : May 25, 2009. Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Administrator, Sector-12, Faridabad, District Faridabad, Haryana. ....... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Circle-I, Faridabad, District Faridabad, Haryana,and another. ....... Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Arun Walia, Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Mr. R.S. Madan, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate, for the respondent No. 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 09.05.2008 (Annexure-P-8), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Circle-I, Faridabad, vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman, holding him entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. Counsel for the petitioner contends that even if the finding which has been recorded by the Labour Court that the workman has worked for more than 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of termination, the workman cannot be reinstated in service as he was not appointed as per statutory rules governing the service nor was his appointment in consonance with the mandate under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He relies upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Ghaziabad Development Authority and another Versus Ashok Kumar and C.W.P. No. 3536 of 2009. 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, in support of his contention. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 on the other hand submits that the findings as recorded by the Labour Court having not been controverted or disputed by the Management, the award passed by the Labour Court, is fully justified. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. As per the claim statement made by the workman that he had worked with the Management as a Chowkidar on daily wage basis from 14.10.1996 to 30.04.1997, 01.05.1998 to 31.07.1998 and thereafter from 03.06.2000 to 30.04.2001. Keeping in view that the termination of services of the workman was not in consonance with the provisions as contained under the Industrial Disputes Act as Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act has not been complied with, the termination of the workman would, therefore, be not in consonance with law. However, keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the workman cannot be reinstated in service. The award impugned herein which is dated 09.05.2008 (Annexure-P-8), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Circle-I, Faridabad, cannot be sustained and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. However, keeping in view the judgment of 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 -2- C.W.P. No. 3536 of 2009. Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another, 2008(3) S.C.T. 788, and keeping in view service rendered by the workman with the Management, it would be just and equitable that the workman be granted compensation of Rs. 15,000/- in lieu of reinstatement in service for the termination of service without complying with the provisions as contained under the Industrial Disputes Act. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned award dated 09.05.2008 (Annexure-P-8), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Circle-I, Faridabad, is hereby set aside. The workman is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to be paid to him within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE May 25, 2009. sjks. Whether referred to the Reporter : Yes / No. -3-