CWP No. 3478 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3478 of 2009 Date of decision July 27, 2009 The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Haryana, Panchkula and another. ....... Petitioners Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak and another. ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. D. S. Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Sonak , Advocate for respondent Nos.2. **** 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The writ petition challenges the order directing reinstatement of the workman who had admittedly worked as a Mali in the department of Forest. The contention of the workman is that he had been in continuous employment from the year 1989 till he was wrongfully terminated without any notice on 30.8.2000. The plea of the workman was contested by the Management pointing out that he had been working from August, 1992 till March, 1999 and after that, he had never reported for duty. In support of the workman's contention, witnesses had been examined who said that he had worked for 264 days in the year 1994 but no evidence had been let in for any subsequent period. On an application for summoning the records by the Management filed at the instance of the CWP No. 3478 of 2009 2 workman, the Management responded by stating that the records up to the year 1994 had been destroyed. No explanation, however, was forthcoming for non-production of records for the subsequent period. 2. The Labour Court drew adverse inference on non- production of records and held that for every year from 1991 to the year 1999 it must be taken that the workman had been in continuous employment for 240 days each year and directed reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in case of public employment there could have been a valid basis and there had been violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution and even non-compliance of Section 25-F ought not to entail right of reinstatement to a workman. Cases of daily rated workers in several cases by the Hon'ble Supreme Court following Secretary, State of Karnatka Vs. Umadevi and 2006 (4) SCC 1 and several other decisions, hold that even if there had been non-compliance of Section 25-F reinstatement cannot be ordered. I find that the contention of the workman that he had been working from the year 1989 must be accepted and I upheld the claim that he had been working only up to March, 1999. For the number of years he had been in continuous employment, the appropriate remedy would be compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/-. The award of the Labour Court is set aside and modified. The amount is to be paid within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which it shall carry simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the workman states that he has been subsequently reinstated. This order addresses the issue relating to right of reinstatement as found in the order of the Labour Court and makes a modification in that regard. If the reinstatement was effected only pursuant to the order of the Labour Court, the order in this writ petition vacates that right. The compensation awarded cannot be CWP No. 3478 of 2009 3 operative without giving up the subsequent employment obtained pursuant to the order of Labour Court. 4. It is always open to the Management to make such form of engagement of the workman as it is permissible by rules. 5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. . (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 27, 2009 archana