IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11215 of 1999 Date of decision: 19.08.2009 The Commissioner & Secretary to Government of Haryana, Agriculture Department, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and another …Petitioners versus Shri Man Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioners. Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The award of the Labour Court that is in challenge is one of reinstatement and back wages. The workman was found to have worked between the period from June 1988 to 08.02.1992. The records produced by the management themselves showed that the workman had 240 days of continuous service prior to the date of termination. The workman had also complained of junior workman having been retained while he was singled out for a discriminatory treatment and that there had been violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court did not advert to the latter issue but held that the workman had continuous service from June 1988 to February 1992, found that Civil Writ Petition No.11215 of 1999 - 2 - there had been a violation of Sections 25-F and directed reinstatement. 2. The factual position that the workman had continuous service from June 1988 to February 1992, cannot be seriously disputed. The workman was a daily rated worker and the termination took place on 24.12.1992. For all these 17 years, the workman had the benefit of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act and it is pleaded on behalf of the workman that if compensation were to be given instead of reinstatement, it shall be on the basis of what the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Mahboob Deepak Versus Nagar Panchayat Gajraula and another-2008(1) SCT 310 , that 50,000 rupees per year could be granted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the case of an unlawful termination of a workman who had worked on daily wage on Rs.20/- per day for 30.07.1988 to 15.07.1989. No principle of law could be said to have been stated in that case as regards the quantum of compensation and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was merely taking an overall picture directing that instead of reinstatement a compensation of Rs.50,000/- could be granted. It is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the State that even the issue as to how the compensation shall be arrived at is before a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court to evolve definite parameters for ascertaining the sum which will be appropriate. Even in the absence of definite guidelines, the determination shall not be an arbitrary sum, it ought to be some definite amount in order that it follows a certain consistent pattern. Having regard to the nature of employment as a Beldar in Agricultural Department, who has been paid as per the D.C.Rates for 3 ½ years of service, I would hold that Rs.50,000/- shall be Civil Writ Petition No.11215 of 1999 - 3 - the appropriate compensation having due regard to the fact that the workman had not actually been working but he had the benefit of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act having been paid every month over Rs.1000/- for the last 10 years. With the above modification, the award of the Labour Court is set aside. The amount shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which it shall bear simple interest of 7.5% per annum. 3. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 19.08.2009 sanjeev