IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13329 of 1997 Date of decision:15.07.2009 Ravi Kumar and others ...Petitioners versus Labour Court, Bathida and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners. None for respondents No.2 and 3. --- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. By the impugned award, the Labour Court found the initial appointments of the Municipal Committee to be invalid and awarded compensation and one month salary totalling Rs.1,503/- to each of the workmen. This direction was on a finding that although the employment had been made by the Municipal Committee without resort to Employment Exchange or advertisement, there had been a non- compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and there was no notice prior to the termination of the services. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the workmen states that when the termination was found to be illegal, the reinstatement Civil Writ Petition No.13329 of 1997 - 2 - ought to have been ordered or if reinstatement was not possible even the compensation that was awarded by the Labour Court was grossly low. It cannot be denied that matter of employment to Municipal Committees are in the nature of public employment where there are definite statutory rules that governs the process of recruitments and if appointments have been made without reference to such statutory rules, workmen shall not have right to hold their employment or complain against that termination even if it is found to be bad. I do not mean to restate the law that is so well established by law (to wit, Secretary, State of Karnataka Versus Uma Devi-(2006) 4 SCC 1 ) that for violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in the matter of grant of state largesse without following due procedure, the only relief could be compensation for termination without notice. 3. The learned counsel would urge that even in the matter of compensation, the Labour Court had adopted an unrealistic approach and awarded a pittance as compensation. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy Versus Radhey Shyam-2008(3) SCT 841, where the Court had awarded Rs.3 lakhs to be paid to the workman as compensation, the learned counsel for the workmen seeks a similar direction. It must be seen that the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with the case where the Labour Court had directed reinstatement. In the High Court, a single Judge and in the inter-Court appeal the Division Bench refused to interfere with the directions of the Labour Court. Notwithstanding favourable judgments in favour of the workman, he could not still obtain Civil Writ Petition No.13329 of 1997 -3 - reinstatement and by the fact that nearly three decades had passed, the Court found that appropriate relief shall not be reinstatement and directed the compensation of Rs.3 lakhs. In Narendra Kumar Versus The Regional Manager Punjab National Bank and others-JT 2009(6) SC 519, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had increased the compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. This was again a case where the Court found the workman to be entitled to be reinstated but taking note of the hard realities of life and taking human pragmatic approach to various factors, decided to enhance the amount. The question of awarding compensation for higher sums in substitution of a relief of reinstatement where the workman was entitled to be reinstated shall be seen differently from cases where reinstatement is impermissible by inherent defect in appointment process. That is exactly what the Labour Court has observed in this case and has found the initial engagement of the workmen to be illegal. An award for compensation for non-compliance under Section 25-F is not at all times to be understood as a relief in lieu of reinstatement. It is, on the other hand, a relief in lieu of notice of termination of employment. Even the quantum of compensation could admit of all variations depending upon particular facts and circumstances which might include the culpability that could be apportioned in the matter of illegal appointments or mode of selection, daily wage character of employment, nature of work etc. For persons who worked as Sweepers and whose services were terminated after allowing them to work for 18 months, I would enhance and provided an additional sum of Rs.15,000/- to each of the workmen. The award of the Labour Court Civil Writ Petition No.13329 of 1997 - 4 - shall stand modified by an additional sum of Rs.15,000/- to each of the workmen, that shall be payable within two months from the date of this order, failing which, it shall carry simple interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of this judgment. 3. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 15.07.2009 sanjeev