CWP No. 10720 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CWP No. 10720 of 2002 Date of decision: 01.08.2008 Municipal Committee, Jandiala Guru .......Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another .......Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Present: Mr. Sanjay Manjithia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shailendra Sharma , Advocate for the petitioner Mr. M K Dogra, Advocate for respondent No. 2 -.- NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The challenge in this writ petition is to the Award dated 09.11.2001 (Annexure P-11) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar, vide which the respondent/workman was held entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service along with 50% back wages from the date of demand notice dated 21.10.1997. The respondent/workman had joined as Clerk with the petitioner management on 10.02.1995 at the monthly salary of Rs.1,605/- and she worked as such uptill 01.08.1997, when her services were terminated without notice, enquiry or without paying any retrenchment compensation. The Labour Court held that even though the workman was appointed on daily wages, yet she being paid salary at the end of the month, should have been entitled for the protection of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'). The management took the plea that the services of the workman were CWP No. 10720 of 2002 2 terminated on account of the order dated 01.04.1997 passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 3827 of 1997. However, this plea was not accepted at all, as the aforesaid order has not been placed on record. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. A perusal of the appointment order dated 23.01.1995 (Annexure P-2) clearly shows that the respondent/workman was appointed on contractual basis. A copy of the judgment passed in CWP No. 3827 of 1997, aforementioned, has also now been placed on record. The directions, contained in the said judgment are as follows:- “1. The Government shall take immediate steps to establish/constitute selecting agencies including the Subordinate Services Selection Board for making regular selection against all the available posts/vacancies. 2. The competent authorities shall make regular selection strictly on the basis of the merit after sending requisition to the employment exchanges concerned in accordance with the provisions of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 and by advertising the posts in the newspapers etc. so that all eligible candidates get opportunity to compete for selection. 3. The entire process of selection and appointment must be completed by the competent authorities by 31.07.1997. The services of all the ad hoc/temporary/daily wagers appointees as well as those appointed on contract basis CWP No. 10720 of 2002 3 or for fixed tenures shall be treated as extended up to 31.07.1997 or till the availability of the regularly selected persons, whichever is earlier. Such appointees shall continue in service on the same terms and conditions on which they were initially appointed. It is, however, made clear that none of such appointees shall acquire any right to hold the post or to be given preference at the time of regular selection. Services of none of such appointees shall be regularized by the Government under any circumstances. If any such appointee is continued in service after 31.07.1997 the concerned competent authority shall be made personally responsible to make payment of salary to such person and the Government shall take appropriate disciplinary action against the defaulting officer. 4. The directions contained in the preceding paragraphs shall apply to all those whose services may have been terminated in the meanwhile and whose writ petition may have also been dismissed by this Court on the ground that the persons appointed without sending requisition to the employment exchange and without advertisement of the posts do not have any right to be continued in service after expiry of the term specified in the order of appointment. 5. The recommendations made by various selecting CWP No. 10720 of 2002 4 agencies which have so far not been given effect to by the Government/ other competent authorities shall be minutely scrutinized by the Government/other competent authorities and appointments be given to the selected candidates in case the Government/competent authority comes to the conclusion that the selection is free from arbitrariness, bias or mala fides. If the Government/competent authorities decide not to act upon the recommendations already made, then specified reasons should be recorded on the file in support of such conclusion. In that event, the consequential vacancies shall be notified to the selecting agency for making fresh selection. 6. The Government of Punjab and its functionaries are directed not to make any ad hoc or temporary appointment henceforth. If all it becomes necessary to make ad hoc or temporary appointment after the completion of process of selection in compliance of the directions given by this Court, then the requisition shall be sent to the concerned employment exchange and the posts shall be advertised in accordance with the observations made by the Supreme Court in The Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh Vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and others (supra). If any appointment is made in disregard with CWP No. 10720 of 2002 5 the directions given by the Supreme Court and by this Court, then the responsibility to make payment of salary to such appointee shall be of the concerned officer.” That thereafter, on 08.05.1997, the Government issued instructions (Annexure P-5) to the same effect. As such, services of the workman were terminated on 01.10.1997. That even if it is accepted that the services of the respondent/workman were terminated pursuant to the directions of this Court, referred to above, the fact remains that the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act should have been complied with. Admittedly, the workman was in service with the petitioner management till the date of her termination. It is an admitted position that retrenchment compensation has not been paid to the respondent in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts that the workman's appointment was a contractual appointment although completed 240 days, coupled with the guidelines laid down by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 3827 of 1997 (supra), it would not be appropriate to order the reinstatement of the respondent/workman in view of judgment in Madhya Pradesh Administration Vs. Tribhuvan, 2008(1) SCC L&S 264. Accordingly, the impugned award dated 09.11.2001 passed by the Labour Court, Amritsar, is modified and to meet the ends of justice, I direct the petitioner-management to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.35,000/- to CWP No. 10720 of 2002 6 the workman, as admittedly the workman was being paid his last drawn wages, as per Section 17-B of the Act. [NIRMALJIT KAUR] JUDGE August 01, 2008 mohan