IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.7533 of 2002 Date of Decision:- 22.02.2010 Workman Marutha Mathu ....Petitioner(s) vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors. ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Gaurav Bakshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Addl.A.G., Haryana, for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present petition is for setting aside the Award dated 20.2.2001 (Ann.P-4) passed by the Labour Court, Ambala vide which the reference has been answered against the workman holding him not entitled to any relief. Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the admission on the part of the respondent-Management that the workman had completed more than 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination and the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 having not been complied with as no retrenchment compensation was paid to him for the period he had worked with the respondent- Management, the Labour Court has, by holding the termination of the workman being covered by the exception as provided in Clause (bb) to Section 2 (oo) of the Act, rejected the claim of the petitioner. He submits that even if the petitioner-workman is not entitled to reinstatement in service C.W.P.No.7533 of 2002 -2- as the work for which he had been appointed had come to an end but still he would be entitled to compensation if not reinstatement, as the termination of his services was in violation of the Section 25-F of the Act. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supports the Award passed by the Labour Court and submits that as the appointment of the workman-petitioner was for a specified work contract and on completion of the said work contract, services of the workman had come to an end, therefore, the finding as recorded by the Labour Court that the termination is not a retrenchment but is covered by the exception as provided under Section sub-clause (bb) of Section 2 (oo) of the Act is fully justified. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. It is not in dispute that the workman had worked with the respondents from September, 1994 to November, 1996. He had, therefore, worked for a little above two years with the respondents. It is also not in dispute that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act have not been complied with while terminating the services of the petitioner. No documentary evidence has been brought on record which would suggest that a contract was entered into between the petitioner and the respondents for a specified work although the counsel for the respondents has submitted that the muster-rolls clearly indicate that the petitioner-workman was working on a contract of employment which had come to an end. In the absence of any documentary evidence showing that a contract was indeed entered into between the workman and the respondents which provided for a specification that his services would stand terminated on completion of the work. The assertion as made by the respondent-Management cannot be C.W.P.No.7533 of 2002 -3- accepted. It is true that it has come on record that the work had come to an end and, therefore, the same was not available with the Management. It is not the case of the petitioner also that any work is available with the respondents. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and especially in view of the fact that the provisions under Section 25-F of the Act have not been complied with when the services of the petitioner were dispensed with, the petitioner would be entitled to compensation, if not reinstatement. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of District Telecom Manager and others vs. Keshab Dev, 2008 (4) S.C.T.33 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ishwar Singh and another, 2008 (3) S.C.T. 788, the workman deserves to be granted compensation. The present writ petition is partly allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the period he has worked with the respondents. The amount of compensation so assessed herein- above shall be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. February 22, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE