IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 21866 of 2008. Date of Decision : 06 January, 2009. Hoshiar Singh ........ Petitioner. Versus The Division Forest Officer, Sirsa and another ......... Respondents. -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. -.- Present:- Mr. B.S. Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) This petition has been preferred by the workman challenging the award dated 21.08.2006 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, wherein the claim of the workman has been rejected. It is the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on 15.09.1987 as a Chowkidar and thereafter, his services were illegally terminated on 01.10.1992. The said termination was challenged by the petitioner and the award dated 01.09.1998 Ex. W.1 was passed in his favour vide which the termination order was set aside and the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated. The termination order was set aside on the ground that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act has not been followed. The petitioner was reinstated w.e.f. 11.01.1999 in compliance with the award passed by the Labour Court. After his reinstatement, the services of the petitioner ware terminated again w.e.f. 10.02.1999 after paying him one month's pay in lieu of notice as also the retrenchment compensation as required under Section 25-F of the Act. It is the submission of counsel for the petitioner that Section 25-H has not been complied with and, therefore, this termination was bad. For this contention C.W.P. No. 21866 of 2008. -2- he has relied upon the Judgments of this Court in the case of Daulat Ram Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh and another, 1992(2) R.S.J. page 781 and Guru Nanak Public School, Chandigarh Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and another, 1998(3) R.S.J. page 410. It is his submission that before making appointment, the claim of the petitioner should have been considered. It is his submission that the person who has been appointed as a Chowkidar would be junior to him as he was reinstated in service and therefore, the claim of the petitioner deserves to have been accepted by the Labour Court. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions put forth by counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned award would show that the case of the respondent/management was that there was only one past of Chowkidar and on that post Kuldeep Singh was appointed on regular basis against the said post on 02.07.1997. In the light of the fact that there was only one post of the Chowkidar, the petitioner could not have been continued in service. It is not in dispute that the initial appointment which was made of petitioner was not in accordance with service rules nor the provisions of Articles14 and 16 of the Constitution of India has been complied with. It is also not in dispute that when the services of the petitioner were terminated w.e.f. 10.02.1999 after paying him one month's pay in lieu of notice as also the retrenchment compensation as required under Section 25-F of the Act had been complied with. In view of the fact that the post of Chowkidar with the respondent/management is governed C.W.P. No. 21866 of 2008.. -3- by the statutory rules which were not complied with at the time of initial appointment of the petitioner was made, the provisions as contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India have not been complied with, the petitioner has no right of reinstatement. The question, therefore, of non compliance of Section 25-H of the Act has also not come into play as the appointment on the single post of Chowkidar has been made by complying with the statutory requirements which is in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Judgment relied upon by counsel for the petitioner would not be of any help to the petitioner. In the light of the Judgments passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. and others Versus Lalit Kumar, 2007(1) S.C.C. 575 and Ghaziabad Development Authority Versus Ashok Kumar and another, 2008(4) S.C.C. 261, wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has categorically held that there can be no reinstatement against a public post under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India without following the recruitment Rules. Since the provisions of Section 25-F have been fully complied with and the compensation as required under the Industrial Disputes Act has been paid to the petitioner, I do not find any illegality in the impugned award. In the light of the above, this petition has no merit and dismissed as such. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 06, 2009. sjks.