Civil Writ Petition No.8110 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8110 of 2007 Date of decision: March 19, 2008 Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Kaithal and another … Petitioners Versus Nirmal Singh and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. D.S.Nalwa, AAG Haryana for the petitioner. Mr. Jasmeet Singh Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.1. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (ORAL) The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Kaithal and Range Forest Officer, Forest Saraswati Range, Kaithal have filed this writ petition impugning the award (Annexure P-1) dated 27th March, 2006 passed by the learned labour Court, Ambala. Workman, respondent No.1 was appointed as labourer on daily wage basis in 1980. His services were terminated on 07.03.2003. Thereafter, he served a demand notice and claimed re-instatement on the ground that as he has completed more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months, hence the termination of his services is in violation of Section 25 (f) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was also averred that as his juniors have been retained in service, therefore, the provisions of Section 25(g) of the Industrial Disputes Act have also been violated. The matter was referred to the labour Court, which after appreciating the evidence, found that the workman has worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination. It was also found that persons junior to the Civil Writ Petition No.8110 of 2007 2 workman respondent No.1 had been retained in service and hence there was also violation of Section 25(g) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, the labour Court, vide impugned award, ordered the re- instatement of respondent workman along with continuity of his service and full back wages. Counsel for the respondent workman states that after the passing of the impugned award, the workman has been taken back in service. Counsel further states that the workman is ready and willing to claim only 25 per cent of his back wages. Mr.D.S.Nalwa, counsel for the State however, submits that the impugned award is liable to be set aside as appointment of the workman was against the constitutional scheme of equality as enshrined under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has been submitted that the name of the workman was never requisitioned either from the employment exchange or through the advertisement. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that as the workman has already been re-instated in service and the workman is ready and willing to claim only 25 per cent of his back wages, therefore we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned award. Resultantly, as the workman has been re-instated in service, therefore, we dispose off the present writ petition and modify the award to the extent that the workman would be entitled to only 25 per cent of his back wages. [Ashutosh Mohunta] Judge [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge March 19, 2008. rps