IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 483 of 2009. Date of Decision : January 13, 2009. Madan ... Petitioner. Versus. P.O. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, .... Respondents. and another. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. M.L. Puri, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). This petition has been filed challenging the award dated 15.09.2008 (Annexure-P-7), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, vide which the reference preferred by the petitioner workman has been answered against him by holding that the petitioner cannot be reinstated in service and there is no violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act as the removal of the workman from service was covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the workman petitioner was not paid the retrenchment compensation alongwith notice of retrenchment and therefore, provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act has been violated. He submits that in the light of the retrenchment notice dated 14.05.2004, copy whereof has been appended as Annexure-P-1, the respondents themselves were accepting the petitioner to be a workman which would be covered under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the notice of retrenchment was issued to the petitioner. He submits that in the light of the documents reliance whereof has been placed C.W.P. No. 483 of 2009. by the management itself, the claim of the petitioner for violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, was clearly made out and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement alongwith all consequential benefits. He further admits that the cheques with regard to the payment of retrenchment compensation were sent to the petitioner, which the petitioner refused to accept on the ground that they were not in accordance with the claim of the petitioner and were not of the value for which the petitioner was entitled. In the light of this, he submits that the award cannot be sustained. I have gone through the records of the case and the impugned award dated 15.09.2008 (Annexure-P-7). I am in agreement with the submission puts forth by counsel for the petitioner that the respondents having accepted themselves that the workman petitioner was entitled to retrenchment compensation in the light of the fact that notice for retrenchment was issued by them on 14.05.2004, copy whereof has been appended as Annexure-P-1,the respondents could not turn around and say that it was not retrenchment and therefore, the termination was covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act leading to a non payment of retrenchment compensation to the workman. However, in the light of the fact that Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a number of writ petitions has held that even if there is violation of provisions of Section 25- F of the Industrial Disputes Act and the post on which the petitioner was working, was a public post which has been filled without following the procedure as envisaged under Article 16 of the Constitution of India and there being violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in the light of the fact that other candidates who are eligible have not been given an -2- C.W.P. No. 483 of 2009. opportunity to participate in the selection process, the only claim available for the petitioner is his entitlement for retrenchment compensation. It is further admitted by counsel for the petitioner that work on which the petitioner was working, has been outsourced, however, he submits that juniors to him are still continuing in service. This further fortifies the position that the petitioner cannot be reinstated because the work on which the petitioner was employed is not being taken by the respondents directly but has been outsourced, therefore, the award cannot be said to be in violation of the legal provisions. In view of the fact that the respondents have themselves issued a notice of retrenchment dated 14.05.2004 to the petitioner and the petitioner was sent cheques for the retrenchment compensation which were returned by the workman petitioner on the ground that they were not sufficient. It would be just and proper that a direction be issued to the respondents to make the payment of retrenchment compensation to the workman petitioner which in any case he was entitled to as per their own notice sent by the respondents to the petitioner (Annexure-P-1). A direction is, therefore, issued to the respondents to make the payment of retrenchment compensation to the workman petitioner, which he was entitled to at the time of his termination, if not already made, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. This petition stands disposed of accordingly. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 13,2009. sjks. Whether refer to the Reporters : Yes / No. -3-