LPA No. 451 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 451 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: December 15, 2009 Malkiat Singh ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Additional Advocate, General, Punjab. ORDER 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge, setting aside the order of Labour Court reinstating the workman with continuity of service and full backwages and instead directing payment of compensation of Rs. 60,000/-. 2. The appellant was employed as Chowkidar on daily wage basis in the year 1983 and after about four years of service, his services were terminated in 1987. Alleging violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the appellant raised industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court upheld the claim and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages. The Management-State challenged the award. After referring judgments in Ghaziabad Development Authority and another Versus Ashok Kumar and another 2008 LPA No. 451 of 2009 2 (4) S.C.C. 261, Mahboob Deepak versus Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula (2008) 1 S.C. 575, State of M.P. Administration Versus Tribhuwan (2007) 9 S.C.C. 748 and State of M.P. and others versus Lalit Kumar Verma (2007) 1 S.C.C. 575, learned Single Judge held that appointment of the workman to a public post being without following procedure of law, he could not be reinstated. It was further held that in view of Jaipur Development Authority vs Ramsahai and another 2006 (11) SCC 684, provisions of Section 25G and 25H were not applicable. However, it was directed that compensation of Rs. 60,000/- be paid to the workman. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to press for reinstatement in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to above. He, however, submits that compensation should have been higher, in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy vs. Radhey Shayam 2008 (3) SCT 841. 5. We are unable to accept the submission, in view of the order passed on 4.12.2009 in LPA No. 343 of 2009 (Kuldeep Singh vs Presiding Officer & others). Considering judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was observed as under: “We are unable to accept this submission as the judgment in Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy (supra) is distinguishable. Therein, the award had become final and thereafter, the matter was taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in second round of litigation arising out of proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. The said judgment was held to be distinguishable in order dated 3.12.2009 in L.P.A. No. 566 of 2009 Balwinder LPA No. 451 of 2009 3 Singh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others. 6. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 15, 2009 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE