IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.16809 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 09.02.2010 Ram Chander ....Petitioner(s) vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.J.S.Cooner, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Addl.Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside the Award dated 2.5.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala vide which reference has been answered against the workman-petitioner holding him not entitled to any relief of reinstatement. Counsel for the petitioner submits that although in view of the finding returned by the Labour Court that the initial appointment of the petitioner was not in consonance with the statutory Rules governing the service but nevertheless in the light of the fact that he had completed more than 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months, he would be entitled to compensation as Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) had not been complied with by the respondent-Management. He refers to the finding given by the Labour Court with regard to the fact that the workman had completed more than 240 days in service. C.W.P.No.16809 of 2009 -2- On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-Management contends that in view of the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the petitioner had completed 240 days in service in the last 12 calendar months prior to his termination, an adverse inference has been drawn against the respondent-management in the light of the fact that MW-1 has not specifically stated that he had completed more than 240 days in service. He, therefore, contends that the findings so recorded by the Labour Court cannot be made the basis for coming to a conclusion that Section 25-F of the Act had not been complied with. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The findings as returned by the Labour Court with regard to the appointment of the petitioner are not in consonance with the statutory Rules governing the service, as also with regard to it being in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, cannot be disputed with. That being so, reinstatement of the workman cannot be granted by this Court in the present case. As regards the finding that the workman had completed more than 240 days in the 12 preceding months in the light of non-denial by the Management that the workman had not completed more than 240 days, the adverse inference in this regard has rightly been drawn by the Labour Court against the respondent- management. That being so, it is an admitted position that Section 25-F of the Act has not been complied with while terminating the services of the workman. Thus, the termination of the services of the petitioner-workman would not be in consonance with the provisions of the Act. The petitioner has worked with the respondent-Management C.W.P.No.16809 of 2009 -3- from January 2000 to December 2005. In the light of the fact that the petitioner had worked for 6 years with the Management, he is held entitled to compensation which is assessed at Rs.60,000/-. Accordingly, the present petition is partly allowed; the Award dated 2.5.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala is approved to the extent it denies the benefit of reinstatement in service to the petitioner-workman. However, the petitioner is held entitled to compensation as assessed herein-above in lieu of his reinstatement as termination of service of the workman is in violation of the provisions of the Act. The respondent-Management is directed to release the amount of compensation as assessed above to the petitioner-workman within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. February 09, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE