IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8753 of 1999 Date of decision: 28.07.2009 Hari Parsad ....Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: None for the petitioner. Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. V.K. Sharma, Advocate. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The challenge is to the award passed by the Labour Court that rejected the reference sought at the instance of the workman claiming reinstatement into service with the management. The award was rendered against the workman on a reasoning that the engagement of the workman between specific periods had been as per express proceedings of the management and held that he was terminated from service on 17.06.1992. The Labour Court found that the engagement also had been under a contract for a specific period. Therefore it held, by virtue of Section 2(oo)(bb) that it ought not to be construed as a retrenchment and that the termination of service resulted by the termination of service period specified in the contract. Civil Writ Petition No.8753 of 1999 - 2 - 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that upto the period 15.10.1991, there had been periodically orders granting extensions. But, subsequently, he continued to work without any express orders of engagement, and he was ultimately terminated from services on 17.06.1992. The period of employment ought not to be therefore considered as under any specified contract that limited his period of engagement and if within a period of one year preceding to 17.06.1992, the number of days he put in service were to be reckoned, it would be seen that he had completed 240 days of continuous service. According to him, he had put in service of 240 days and he was entitled to the benefits of Section 25-F and there being admittedly a case of non-compliance of the said provision, the termination ought to be affirmed as illegal and that he shall be declared entitled for reinstatement with back wages. 3. While I have no difficulty in accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the workman that he had completed 240 days prior to 1976 on the interpretation made by the Labour Court that his work qualified for contractual employment between specified periods and the termination on 17.06.1992 was not excepted under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, I still find that in matters of public employment which are governed by specific recruitment rules and right of reinstatement cannot be a matter of course unless it is shown that there was any particular right of post which he held. Admittedly, he was only as a contractual employee and there was no sanctioned post to which he could claim a right to be reinstated. While setting aside the finding of Civil Writ Petition No.8753 of 1999 - 3 - the Labour Court that his termination could not be amount to retrenchment, I hold that the workman had completed 240 days of service and therefore he was entitled to insist on following the procedure under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. As stated above, interest of justice would be adequately fulfilled if compensation is awarded in lieu of notice under Section 25-F which in my view, under the circumstances, is estimated at Rs.15,000/- which shall be paid within a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the amount shall bear simple interest at 7.5% per annum. 5. The award of the Labour Court is set aside and modified to provide for compensation of Rs.15,000/-. 6. The writ petition is ordered as above. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 28.07.2009 sanjeev