IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7830 of 2010 Date of Decision : November 14, 2011. Divisional Forest Officer, Jind .....Petitioner versus Dalbir Singh and another .....Respondents Civil Writ Petition No.7815 of 2010 Divisional Forest Officer, Jind .....Petitioner versus Jagdish and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.R.D.Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr.Hari Om Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.7830 and 7825 of 2010 as the issue involved in both the cases is somewhat similar. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.7830 of 2010. The State of Haryana through its Divisional Forest Officer, Jind Forest Division, Jind, is aggrieved by the impugned award dated 20.04.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, awarding a lump-sum compensation of Rs.60,000/- to the CWP Nos.7830 & 7825 of 2010 [2] workman-respondent No.1 in lieu of his reinstatement in service. The broadly admitted facts are that the workman was engaged by the petitioner-management as a Beldar-cum-Mali on daily wages from the year 1985 onwards and it appears that he kept on working intermittently or occasionally. In the year 1988, the workman worked for 211 days, followed by 265 days in the year 1989. In the very next year, i.e., 1990, he worked for 223 days and in the year 1991, he worked for 214 days. He was lastly engaged in the year 2006 for a period of one month only. Alleging that he was illegally retrenched without paying any compensation under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the workman raised an 'industrial dispute' which has been, as noticed above, answered in his favour by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar vide award dated 20.04.2009 awarding a lump-sum compensation of Rs.60,000/-. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It may be true that in every year of his engagement, the workman did not work for 240 days but admittedly, in the year 1989, he worked for 265 days. In some other years, the workman worked for more than 200 days and if the benefit of Saturdays, Sundays or Gazetted holidays is counted, he might have worked for more than 240 days in those years also. The settled principle is that once violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is found to have been committed, the necessary consequence of reinstatement in service follows. In the case of a public authority, an exception can be carved out to say that if the workman was CWP Nos.7830 & 7825 of 2010 [3] engaged without following the procedure consistent with the mandate or Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution, the Labour Court may grant compensation instead of reinstatement of such workman in service. As regards the quantum of compensation, it may be seen that the workman has worked for many years in the petitioner-department, though may not be continuously. In these circumstances, awarding of lump-sum compensation of Rs.60,000/- to the workman appears to be fair and reasonable and warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. November 14, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE