In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh LPA No. 710 of 2010 Date of Decision: October 25, 2010 Amir Chand …Appellant Versus Incharge Government Murgi Sewa Kender, Amritsar and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Arun Abrol, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. AG, Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal by the workman-appellant under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 1.5.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court, setting aside the award of the Labour Court dated 27.5.2004 (P-3), vide which the workman-appellant was reinstated in service and awarded 50% back wages from the date of demand notice, namely, 15.5.1999. 2. Before the Labour Court, the Animal Husbandry Department, Punjab-respondent had taken a specific stand that the appointment of the L.P.A. No. 710 of 2010 workman-appellant was against the instructions which provided for constitution of a selection committee for making such like appointments. The learned Single Judge has recorded a categorical finding that the appointment of the workman-appellant was not in consonance with the statutory rules and instructions. According to the learned Single Judge no selection committee was constituted and as against 19 vacancies advertised by the respondents, 79 persons were appointed. Such like appointments were in flagrant violation of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. Accordingly, it has been concluded that the relief of reinstatement would not flow automatically on account of violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). Accordingly, learned Single Judge has given compensation to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- because the workman-appellant has worked from 12.8.1987 to 24.2.1989. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the considered view that the principles laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, (2010) 3 SCC 192, would impel us to take the view that when the plea of violation of instructions/rules has been set up before the Labour Court and after affording full opportunity the Labour Court has recorded a categorical finding then the relief of reinstatement has been rightly denied by the learned Single Judge to the workman-appellant. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the judgment dated 1.5.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge. 4. Mr. Arun Abrol, learned counsel for the workman-appellant has raised one argument that a different view has been taken in other cases in respect of employees belonging to the same Animal Husbandry Department 2 L.P.A. No. 710 of 2010 and the writ petitions filed by the them have been dismissed upholding the award. There was no such plea raised before the learned Single Judge and we are not inclined to entertain any new plea at this stage and the argument is devoid of merit and is rejected. 5. As a sequel to the above discussion, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) October 25, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 3