CWP No. 8717 of 1996 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 8717 of 1996 Date of decision July 14 2009 District Sports and Youth Welfare Officer, Rohtak ....... Petitioner Versus Balwan Singh and others . .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. D. S. Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the petitioner. Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers 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. The writ petitioner challenges the order dated 26.7.1995 directing reinstatement and back wages for a workman who had been appointed as a Groundsman by Sports and Youth Welfare Department, Haryana, Chandigarh. The admitted case was that he was appointed on 20.12.1988 and was terminated on 29.2.1992 and finding that there had been no notice given under Section 25-F, the Labour Court held that there had been no statutory compliance. Learned counsel appearing for the State, Mr. Nalwa submits that the appointment of the Groundsman was being done on express sanction of government for a certain period of time and he had been originally appointed as a full time Groundsman w.e.f. 20.12.1988 to look after the Stadium by the District Sports and Youth Welfare Officer, Sports Stadium, Rohtak. The initial order of appointment CWP No. 8717 of 1996 2 did not stipulate the period of engagement but the subsequent communication which gave rise to termination of service indicated that the sanctioned period had expired on 29.2.1992, and therefore, the services of the workman were terminated. It was the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the State that the periodical sanctions for appointment in order to make the payment of wages and there is no scheme for regularization at all. According to him, the services of Groundsman were availed only on express sanction for engaging for a particular period and when the sanctioned period had expired, his services were also terminated. 2. If there is no sanctioned post to which the petitioner could claim appointment, the question of reinstatement in such a case does not arise. The only remedy the workman could obtain is compensation for violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is borne out of record and indeed it is a matter of admission that the workman had been employed for a period of 3 years and 2 months and in view of non-compliance of the notice under Section 25-F the adequate remedy would be compensation to the tune of Rs.35,000/-. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the workman was reinstated in compliance of the order of the Labour Court and he is still in service. In view of the decision taken by me that the workman is not entitled to reinstatement, if he has been reinstated in pursuance of the order of the Labour Court, this order will deny to him such a right and for all the period that he has worked and which he has earned, he will not come to any damage or detriment but since the order directing reinstatement was withdrawn and set aside by this Order, he shall be only entitled to compensation for the period, which has to be reckoned from 20.12.1988 to 29.2.1992 on such a basis. 4. The order of the Labour Court is set aside and CWP No. 8717 of 1996 3 modified in the manner referred to above. The payment shall be made within two months failing which the amount shall bear interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 14, 2009 archana