IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.16292 of 1995 Date of Decision:- 04.05.2009 Market Committee, Gurgaon ....Petitioner(s) vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Ravi Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amar Vivek, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the award dated 14.9.1994 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Gurgaon, vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman holding him entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity thereof and back wages. Counsel for the petitioner contends that even if the findings as recorded by the Labour Court are taken to be correct, then also the workman-respondent No.2. would not be entitled to reinstatement in service as his initial appointment was not in consonance with the statutory rules governing the service. He further contends that as per the Scheme as envisaged under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the appointment of the workman being not in consonance with that Scheme, C.W.P.No.16292 of 1995 -2- would not entitle him to reinstatement despite the non-compliance of the provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Counsel further contends that the workman would, at the most, be entitled to compensation for the period of service he had put in with the Management. Counsel further contends that the workman joined on 1.5.1984 and continued till 3.11.1987. He, in support of his contention, relies upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ghaziabad Development Authority and another vs. Ashok Kumar and another, 2008 (4) SCC 261, Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, (2008) 1 SCC 575, M.P. Administration vs. Tribhuwan, (2007) 9 SCC 748, Uttranchal Forest Development Corpn. vs. M.C.Joshi, (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 813, State of M.P. and others vs. Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007) SCC 575. Counsel for the respondent-workman supports the award passed by the Labour Court and supports that the finding as recorded by the Labour Court is based on the evidence and does not call for any interference by this Court. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Admittedly, the post on which the workman has been ordered to be reinstated is a public post which was not filled as per the statutory rules governing the service. The appointment of the workman was on daily wage basis and since the appointment was not in consonance with the statutory rules and the Scheme as envisaged under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India having not been complied with, the workman in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme C.W.P.No.16292 of 1995 -3- Court referred to above, would not be entitled to reinstatement in service. In this view of the matter, the workman would be entitled to compensation in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of District Telecom Manager and others vs. Keshab Dev, 2008 (4) S.C.T.33 and a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ishwar Singh and another, 2008 (3) S.C.T. 788. Since the workman had worked with the respondent from 1.5.1984 to 3.11.1987, he is held entitled to compensation of Rs.30,000/-. Counsel for the respondent has stated that despite the order passed by this Court, the provisions as contained under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with, which position has been disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. However, as per the provisions contained in Section 17-B of the Act, the workman is entitled to the last wages drawn which he would have been entitled to during the pendency of the present writ petition. A direction is issued to the petitioner- Management to release the amount of compensation, as assessed above along with arrears, if any, under Section 17-B of the Act within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. May 04, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No