IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.17491 of 1999 Date of decision : 10.8.2009 State of Punjab and others … Petitioners Versus Viro Devi and another …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, DAG Punjab for the petitioner. Mr.K.S.Kapur, Advocate for respondent No.1. 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 This writ petition challenges the direction contained in the award for reinstatement of the workman- respondent. The workman claims that she had been employed with the petitioner-department from 1.4.1988. Her services were terminated on 26th August, 1989 without any notice or pay for notice period and without retrenchment compensation in violation of Sections 25F, 25 G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2 Before the Labour Court, the management produced the Muster Rolls for the period from September, 1988 to March 1989. Finding that relevant records from April, 1989 onwards has not been produced, the Labour Court had drawn an adverse inference and held that workman has completed 240 days continuous service in a calendar year. Finding that no relief under Section 25 F was granted, Labour Court found that there was non-compliance of the statutory mandate and granted the relief as mentioned above. CWP No.17491 of 1999 3 In the writ petition challenging the award, the learned counsel for the State, Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma submits that workman had been engaged only on daily wages w.e.f. 1.1.1988 to 31.12.1988, 1.2.1989 to 28.2.1989 and according to her, the offer of appointment was not issued to the workman as she was on daily wages. It has also been contended that the services of the respondent /workman had not been terminated but she herself left the job on her own and never turned up till 28.2.1989. 4. The claim of the management that the workman had not turned up till 28.2.1989, cannot be said to be correct in view of the fact that the particular records from April, 1989 to August, 1989 had not been produced and the Labour c`ourt had drawn adverse inference for non-production of the documents which ought to have been in her custody. Finding of the Labour Court that the workman must have rendered more than 240 days of continuous service before 28.8.1989, is confirmed. 5. The question, however, still subsists as to whether workman was entitled to the relief of reinstatement which in any manner shall not be possible on account of fact that she was merely a daily wager. There was no sanctioned post and it has been stated that even offer of appointment had not been issued and the engagement was purely on temporary basis. In view of the consistent judicial pronouncements relating to relief that workman would claim in case where in the matter of public appointments, where there exists no sanctioned post and where it is proved that the entry in the service was not through any regular recruitment process, the appropriate remedy that would be available would only be compensation. (Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. V. Workman (2007) 1 SCC 408), Kanpur Electricity Supply Co.Ltd. V. Shamim Mirza (2009)1 SCC 20. 2 CWP No.17491 of 1999 6. In my view, taking into the consideration the period of engagement, the long period of litigation when workman had obtained a direction for reinstatement, it shall be in the interest of justice to award a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the workman. The compensation shall be paid within a period of 8 weeks on receipt of the copy of the award, failing which it shall carry simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The award of the Labour Court is set aside and modified to provide for compensation as mentioned above. 7. The writ petition is disposed of. [ K.Kannan ] Judge 10.08.2009 sd 3