IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1) C.W.P.No.12917 of 2009 Director, Industrial Finance and Banking, Punjab ....Petitioner Versus Sh.Deep Singh and another ...Respondents 2) C.W.P.No.7426 of 2010 Deep Singh ....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh and another ...Respondents Date of decision : 4.5.2011 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Salil Sagar, Addl.A.G., Punjab for the State of Punjab. Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the workman. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The State of Punjab is the petitioner in CWP No.12917 of 2009 and has impugned the award of the Labour Court dated 4.2.2009. The workman raised an industrial dispute alleging that the termination of his services was in contravention of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The appropriate government referred the following issue for C.W.P.No.12917 of 2009 -2- determination to the Labour Court:- “Whether the services of Shri Deep Singh, r/o H.No.938, Sector 40-A, Chandigarh were terminated illegally by the management of his employer the Director, Institutional Finance and Banking and Public Enterprises, Punjab, S.C.O.No.53-55, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh; if so, to what effect and to what relief he is entitled to, if any?” The Labour Court concluded that the termination of services of the petitioner was in contravention of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act and held it to be bad on account thereof. Reinstatment of the workman was denied but a compensation of Rs.1 lakh was awarded. The State of Haryana makes a grievance of it by saying that there was sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act as the amount equivalent of one month's wages and a draft of Rs.7,460/- by way of compensation was sent to the workman vide letter dated 29.12.2000, which according to the State, is sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, and thus according to him, the findings of the Labour Court are erroneous on this aspect. It was further contended that there is a delay on behalf of the postal authorities to deliver the cheque to the workman and this is reflected from Annexure P-4, the certificate issued by the postal authorities indicating that the cheque had been delivered to Smt. Shakuntala Devi on 2.1.2001. Since a complaint was received that the same had to be delivered to Shri Deep Singh, it was redelivered to him on 24.1.2001. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the C.W.P.No.12917 of 2009 -3- State that even if it is presumed that there was non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act and that termination of the workman was bad on account of such non-compliance, yet the award of compensation to the extent of Rs.1 lakh is highly exorbitant in view of the fact that the services rendered by the workman was merely an year. The prayer is resisted by the learned counsel for the workman to contend that the respondent worked with the petitioner from 10.10.1995 to 11.12.1996 when his services were terminated and he raised an industrial dispute and reference was forwarded to the Labour Court which accepted it and the workman was directed to be reinstated along with continuity of service and all back wages. It was then in 1999 that his services were terminated and as such by virtue of earlier award the workman had put in five years of service and consequently considering this period and considering the fact that there was non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, reinstatement of the workman should have been logical consequence but instead thereof he was merely paid Rs.1 lakh. He also filed C.W.P.No.7426 of 2010 assailing the aforesaid award and raised the very same contention that he has raised in support of his plea while resisting the contention of the learned counsel for the State in CWP No.12917 of 2009. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The contention of learned counsel for the State that there was sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act is not borne out from any material on record. Annexure P-4, the C.W.P.No.12917 of 2009 -4- document on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner to contend that a cheque of compensation amount was sent to the workman well before the termination of his services, was not produced before the Labour Court and as such it is too late in the day to evaluate its impact. There is no other material before this Court from which it can be inferred that the findings of the Labour Court regarding non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25F is unfounded and incorrect. That being so, the finding has to find its approval in the expression of this Court. The next question that is to be seen is as to whether the respondent-workman was required to be granted the benefit of reinstatement in service or was to be granted the compensation in the given set of circumstances is adequate. On due consideration of this aspect of the matter, I find that the Labour Court has justifiably exercised its discretion. It is the settled principle of law that reinstatement as a consequence should not follow automatically. It is also not denied that the services of the workman were merely a stop gap arrangement and those were dispensed with when the regular incumbent was made available. In this view of the matter, the Labour Court has rightly exercised its discretion judiciously to award the compensation keeping in view the fact that the workman had put in almost 5 years of service. There is thus no infirmity in the impugned award and the same is upheld. Consequently, both the writ petitions are dismissed. 4.5.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss