LPA No. 363 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 363 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: December 2, 2009 Chhoto Devi ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. J.S. Manipur, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents. ORDER 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge setting aside the order of Labour Court reinstating the workman without backwages and substituting the same with a direction for compensation of Rs. 35,000/-. 2. The appellant workman was appointed as part time sweeper and worked upto 10.12.1998, when her services were discontinued. 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 management—State contested the claim by submitting that appointment of the appellant was as part time sweeper for 89 days which period was extended from time to time LPA No. 363 of 2009 2 and was not continuous for 12 years, as claimed by the workman. However, period from 1994 to 1998 was admitted with some breaks. The Labour Court held that since there was violation of Section 25-F of the Act, the workman was entitled to reinstatement without backwages but with continuity of service. 3. On writ petition to this Court, learned Single Judge held that appointment of the appellant to a public post being de hors the rules, the workman was not entitled to reinstatement as held by Division Bench of this Court in State of Haryana versus Ishwar Singh and another 2008 (3) S.C.T. 788, following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Telecom District Manager and other versus Keshab Deb 2008 (8) S.C.C. 402. Accordingly, learned Single Judge directed payment of compensation of Rs. 35,000/- by holding that services rendered by respondent was for 4-1/2 years. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant relies on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagbir Singh versus Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr. 2009 (4) RSJ 367, holding that in such circumstances, a daily wager may not be entitled to reinstatement but was entitled to compensation. In that case, compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded, even though period of service was about one year. 5. We are of the view that there can be no rigid formula for determining payment of compensation, particularly when it is held that the workman is not entitled to reinstatement. Judgment relied upon by workman is on its own facts. 6. Taking an over all view of the matter, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to further amount of Rs. 15,000/- over and above the amount directed to be paid by learned Single Judge. Let the payment be LPA No. 363 of 2009 3 made within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 2, 2009 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE