IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 1053 of 2010 Date of Decision: December 8, 2010 Ishwar Singh …Appellant Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Tribhuvan Dahiya, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 19.2.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge partially allowing the petition of the appellant. The Labour Court in its award dated 14.8.2008 (P-4) had non-suited the appellant on the ground that his appointment was not in accordance with the statutory rules. The aforesaid finding has been set aside by the learned Single Judge because it was not even pleaded before the Labour Court and in the absence of pleadings the learned Single Judge has held that the Labour Court travelled beyond its jurisdiction by recording the aforesaid finding. 2. The learned Single Judge has also held that the appellant was employed as a Chowkidar for looking after the construction material in the L.P.A. No. 1053 of 2010 Sports Complex where he worked from 2.8.2000 to May 2002. He had completed 240 days of service in the preceding 12 months from the date of his termination. The provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) were not complied with. The learned Single Judge also found that the construction of the Sports Complex was completed and there was no work for the post of Chowkidar warranting grant of relief to the appellant for his reinstatement. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge has awarded him compensation of ` 40,000/-. 3. Mr. Tribhuvan Dahiya, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that once the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act have been violated then reinstatement should have been ordered as a rule. However, we are unable to accept his submission because there is no rule of law that in every case of violation of Section 25-F of the Act, reinstatement should be ordered. There may be cases where lumpsum amount may have to be awarded. The present case is one of that nature because the construction of Sports Complex was work of a limited period and there was no post of Chowkidar left after the completion of work. Therefore, the award of lumpsum amount of ` 40,000/- in lieu of reinstatement is fair assessment, particularly when the appellant has rendered service from August 2000 till May 2002. There is, thus, no merit in the appeal. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) December 8, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2 C.M. No. 3154 of 2010 in LPA No. 1053 of 2010 Present: Mr. Tribhuvan Dahiya, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 46 days in re- filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) December 8, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor