CWP No. 4495 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 4495 of 2009 Date of decision: 25.02.2010 Ram Kumar son of Sh. Ram Nath ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and others ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Addl. A.G. Haryana. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) When the case came up for hearing on 23.03.2009 at the very outset, counsel for the petitioner had made a statement, which reads as follows:- “Counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the workman has completed more than 240 days and Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act having not been complied with, the workman although would not be entitled to reinstatement in service as it CWP No. 4495 of 2009 2 was a public post, which was filled up without following the statutory Rules but would be entitled to compensation as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Telecom District Manager and others vs. Keshab Deb, 2008 (4) SCT 33 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ishwar Singh and another, 2008 (3) SCT 788.” At this stage, counsel for the petitioner states that admittedly the petitioner had worked with the respondents from 22.09.2003 to 30.09.2005 and his services were terminated in violation of the provisions as contained under the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act'). Section 25-F of the Act has been violated and, therefore, he is entitled to compensation in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court, which find mention in order 23.03.2009 (reproduced above) passed by this Court. He, on this basis, prays for grant of compensation for the period the petitioner had worked with the respondents. Counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 states that the petitioner was an appointee of respondent No. 4 and respondents No. 2 and 3 were only making the payment of the salary to the Gram Panchayat. He, therefore, contends that the liability, if any, would be of the Gram Panchayat. None has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. CWP No. 4495 of 2009 3 As per the Award passed by the Labour Court and has been admitted by the counsel for the parties, the salary was being given to the petitioner by the Government through the Gram Panchayat. That being so, the liability of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act cannot be said to be of the Gram Panchayat alone although it has come in evidence that the tubewells were maintained by respondents No. 2 and 3 and the maintenance also was being looked after by respondents No. 2 and 3. Keeping in view the totallity of the facts and circumstances of the case, a direction is issued to respondents No. 2 and 3 to make the payment of compensation, to which the petitioner is held entitled to, keeping in view the fact that he had worked for more than two years with the respondents and the provisions under Section 25-F of the Act have not been complied with while terminating his services. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The Award dated 09.04.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court is set aside to the extent that the petitioner is not entitled to any claim except compensation. The amount of compensation is assessed as Rs. 25,000/-. The said amount be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE February 25, 2010 pj