IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 6615 of 2009. Date of Decision : May 01, 2009. Balwinder Singh. ....... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala, and others. ....... Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 06.03.2009 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the Labour Court, Patiala, wherein the workman has been granted compensation for violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act while terminating the services of the workman. Counsel for the petitioner contends that once a finding has been returned by the Labour Court that the provisions as contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with, the workman is required to be reinstated in service. He further contends that even if the reinstatement could not be granted, the workman would be entitled to compensation and a very meager amount of compensation has been granted to him. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. There can be no doubt that finding has been returned by the Labour Court that the workman has completed more than 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of termination, therefore, while terminating C.W.P. No. 6615 of 2009. the services of the workman as no notice was given or any compensation was granted to him, Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act stood violated. However, relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Limited Versus Mamni 2006 (2) L.L.J. 744 (S.C.), the workman has been granted compensation instead of reinstatement with back wages as the appointment of the workman was not in consonance with the statutory rules governing the service. Reference of the Judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Versus Uma Devi and others 2006 (2) L.L.J. 722 (S.C.), has also been made. The law as applied by the Labour Court in the given facts and circumstances of the case, is fully justified and, therefore, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Labour Court while not granting reinstatement of the workman in service. The Labour Court has taken into consideration the relevant factors which includes the period of service rendered by the workman and the pendency of the proceeding before the Labour Court and on consideration thereof has granted him compensation of Rs. 15,000/- with a direction to the respondent Department to pay the workman the said amount of compensation. The discretion which has been used by the Labour Court while granting compensation, do not call for any interference by this Court. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE May 01, 2009. sjks. -2-