IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1381 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.2.2010 The Director General of Health Services, Haryana. -----Appellant Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Santosh Aggarwal & another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Ms. Sushma Chopra, Addl.A.G., Haryana for the appellant. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, setting aside the award of the labour Court, directing reinstatement and instead directing payment of compensation of Rs.45,000/-. 2. The respondent/workman was appointed as Medical Officer in Haryana Civil Medical Services (Class-II) for a fixed term of six months. However, she worked for the period from 6.1.1978 to 15.4.1982, after which, her term was not extended. She challenged the order of refusal to extend her term by alleging violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act”), by raising an industrial disputes, which was LPA No.1381 of 2009 referred for adjudication. The Labour Court upheld the claim of the workman. 3. The appellant filed writ petition in this Court and challenged the award of the Labour Court on the ground that the respondent No.1 was not a ‘workman’, as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Act. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Management of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others (1996) 11 SCC 236. It was further submitted that the appointment having not been made as per the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the workman could not be reinstated, even if there was violation of Section 25-F of the Act. Reliance was placed on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority and another v. Ashok Kumar and another 2008(4) SCC 261, Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula (2008) 1 SCC 575, M. P. Administration v. Tribhuwan (2007) 9 SCC 748, State of M.P. and others v. Lalit Kumar Verma (2007) 1 SCC 575 and Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai and another 2006 (II) SCC 684. 4. Learned Single Judge held that reinstatement was not permissible in view of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred to above and instead compensation of Rs.45,000/- was allowed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2 LPA No.1381 of 2009 6. In view of concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court and learned Single Bench that there was no evidence to hold that the respondent was performing any supervisory duty, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view that the respondent was a workman. In any case, amount of compensation award not being substantial, no interference is called for.. 7. The appeal is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE February 23, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3