IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 1972 of 2010. Date of Decision : February 05, 2010. Dalbir Singh ...... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh, and others ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. D.K. Nagar, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the present petition is for quashing of Award dated 10.10.2007 (Annexure-P-6), vide which the petitioner/workman had been denied reinstatement, but had been granted a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. Counsel for the petitioner/workman submits that once the termination of services of the workman have been found to be not in consonance with law, the reinstatement of the petitioner/workman was required to have been made by the Tribunal in the given facts and circumstances of the case. He, therefore, prays that a direction be issued to respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service by setting aside the award. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. It has come on record that it was not an isolated position with regard to the fact that the petitioner had mis-conducted, while he was appointed on contract basis with respondents. As a matter of fact, he had on C.W.P. No. 1972 of 2010. -2- earlier four occasions, been found to have committed frauds, which amounted to Rs. 460/-, details whereof are as follows :- Sr. No. Bus Checking Fraud of Rupees 1. Ambala to Pipli 30 (from two passengers) 2. Ambala to Panipat 59 (from one passenger) 3. Chandigarh to Israna 284 (from four passengers) 4. Chandigarh to Rohtak 87 (from one passenger) The termination of services of the petitioner/workman was found to be not in consonance with law merely because of technical reasons. In any case, the appointment of the petitioner/workman was merely on contractual basis and when the Management lost faith on an employee as in this case who was a conductor and dealing with the money, reinstatement of such an employee would not be in the interest of the organisation as well as the Management. Accordingly, relying upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the Labour Court had rightly come to a conclusion that the petitioner/workman should be given a lump-sum compensation. Counsel for the petitioner at this stage prays for enhancement of the lump-sum compensation to the petitioner/workman. A perusal of the record indicates that the assessment, which had been made by the Labour Court, is fully justified and, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court on this aspect as well. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE February 05, 2010. sjks.