C.W.P No.193 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.193 of 1999 Date of Decision: 16.07.2009 Rajinder Singh .....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat and another ...Respondents Present: Mr. B.R. Vohra, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. The award of the Labour Court rejecting the plea of the workman complaining about his alleged illegal termination is the subject of challenge in the writ petition. 2. The contention by the workman before the Labour Court was that he joined the services of the Municipal Committee, Sonepat on 01.11.1990 as typist @ Rs.1046/- per month but he was orally terminated from service on 01.07.1994 in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The management joined issues on the nature of engagement by saying that he was only a Beldar in the employment of the management when development work was to be carried out and he had not worked for 240 days prior to the order of termination. He was, therefore, not entitled to the benefits of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. C.W.P No.193 of 1999 -2- It was also pleaded on behalf of the management that the workman had not worked continuously in the manner contended by him and set out the details of several days when according to the management he was working. 3. The workman had examined himself but no evidence was given on the side of the management except filing the written statement. It was a matter of admission that in the period of 12 months prior to the admitted date when his services were terminated on 01.07.1994, he had worked for the months of August 1993, November, 1993 and January, 1994 and subsequently had not been engaged. This plea was accepted and the Labour Court had dismissed the claim of the workman. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman pointed out to the fact that the workman had made a claim before the authority constituted under the Payment of Wages Act claiming wages from February 1994 to June 1994 and an order was passed on 18.06.1997 on an agreement that provided for payment of five months' wages. This, according to learned counsel for the workman, constituted an admission that the workman had worked also during the months between February, 1994 to June, 1994 and by a proper reckoning the workman had completed 242 days. The Labour Court has not considered the admission by the management to pay wages between February, 1994 to June, 1994. The finding of the Labour Court that he had not worked for a period of 240 days prior to his termination is, therefore, clearly wrong. Consequently, the finding that he was not entitled to notice under Section 25-F is also erroneous. C.W.P No.193 of 1999 -3- 5. The question that could still loom large is whether the workman is entitled to reinstatement, having regard to the fact that the management-Municipal Committee is a public authority constituted under an enactment that has rules prescribing the cadre, mode of employment and tenure of employment. The engagement of the workman cannot be said to be in conformity with law to merit a claim for reinstatement. In view of the present disposition that has come through The Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi and others 2006 (4) SCC 1 that a person cannot claim regularization or obtain re- entry by the only fact that the person had held the employment for any length of time. For non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F, having regard to the period of engagement for over four years and the long drawn litigation that the workman had been fighting for the last 15 years, in my view, it would be appropriate if the workman is compensated to the tune of Rs.40,000/-. 6. The award of the Labour Court is, therefore, set aside and the workman is declared entitled to a compensation of Rs.40,000/- in lieu of the non-compliance of the statutory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The payment shall be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the amount shall bear simple interest @ 7.5% per annum. 7. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 16, 2009 Pankaj*