C.W.P No.13522 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.13522 of 1999 Date of Decision: 31.07.2009 Avtar Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Monika Sharma Chhibbar, Sr. DAG, Punjab. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner, who had been employed as Sweeper-cum- Chowkidar in a hostel run under a particular scheme called the Pre- Matric Scholarship Scheme by the Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes Welfare Department, Punjab had been removed from service on 01.04.1992, which became subject of challenge through an adjudication referred before the Labour Court, Patiala. The proceedings ended in a compromise where an award was passed in terms thereof directing reinstatement with continuity of service. It is an undisputed fact that he did rejoin as per the terms but terminated again on 28.02.1997 when the Government decided not to operate the scheme and closed down the hostel. 2. The writ petition challenges the order of termination as being illegal and violative of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and seeks for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing C.W.P No.13522 of 1999 -2- reinstatement and other consequential reliefs. 3. Learned counsel, Ms. Monika Chhibbar Sharma, appearing for the State contested that the petition is not maintainable for, the relief that could effectively be adjudicated before the Labour Court cannot be a matter for intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution. She further stated that the facts in the petition are disputed and this Court shall not exercise writ jurisdiction in such a situation. 4. When there had been a re-induction of the workmen by the Department of the State assuring him of a continuity of service and a publication of award in terms of a compromise, it is untenable that the services of such a workman could have been terminated even for legitimate reasons without following the procedures under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The termination was illegal per se but however, having regard to the circumstances that the post itself is not available, the only appropriate relief shall be to compensate the petitioner for the illegal termination. 5. It has been a prevalent practice through decisions obtained through the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other decisions of this Court that in matters of public appointments where the person, who is terminated from service in contravention of the provisions of law but still when such a person cannot be restored to the status quo, compensation is invariably awarded, having due regard to the number of years of service, the time spent during litigation, the extent of hardship suffered by the workman, the nature of service, salary earned etc. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to me a decision in Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy Vs. Radhey Sham 2009(1) RSJ 95 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court while finding that the order of C.W.P No.13522 of 1999 -3- termination was bad was awarding a compensation of Rs.3 lacs. This decision cannot help the petitioner as a guide for fixing the quantum of compensation for, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the case where they not only found that the termination was bad but they also found that the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement. Having regard to the situation where the petitioner had undergone a long drawn litigation of over 27 years instead of directing reinstatement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed Rs.3 lacs as compensation. 7. In this case, the right of reinstatement is not a remedy which is available to the petitioner. It may not be, therefore, possible to treat him on par with the situation that obtained in the case that was dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In my view, applying the parameters set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment relating to compensation, I would think that a compensation of Rs.1 lac shall be awarded to the workman. This amount shall be paid within a period of 8 weeks from the date when the copy of the order is received, failing which it shall bear simple interest @ 7.5% per annum. 8. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 31, 2009 Pankaj*