IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 20384 of 2006 Date of decision: 02.02.2009 Gurmej Singh S/O Sh. Ajit Singh .....PETITIONERS VERSUS The Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mill Ltd. Paniar, District Gurdaspur ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 22.05.2006 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, vide which reference has been answered against the workman holding him not entitled to reinstatement and back wages as the workman has not worked for a continuous period of 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Labour Court has totally overlooked the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. CWP No. 20384 of 2006 -2- The Court has proceeded on the assumption that the continuous period has to be without any break. He contends that 62 days break from 01.08.1996 to 10.08.1997 has been taken into consideration to hold that he has not worked for a continuous period of 240 days. I have gone through the records of the case as well as the award passed by the Labour Court. On a specific question put to the counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 that whether the finding given by the Labour Court can be sustained in law and the same is in consonance with the Industrial Disputes Act, counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 is unable to justify the finding given by the Labour Court. The specific provision providing for counting of the days, which would be taken into consideration for the preceding 12 calendar year really talks of completion of 240 days within the 12 preceding calendar months from the date of termination. In this view of the matter, the finding recorded by the Labour Court is contrary to law and, therefore, cannot be sustained. The question, therefore, now arises for consideration is since Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, has not been complied with, would the workman be entitled to reinstatement in service as he has completed 240 days in the last 12 months preceding the date of his termination. It is an admitted position that the appointment of the workman was made on a seasonal post and the same was not made in accordance with the Service Rules governing such appointment, which are called the Punjab State Co-operative Sugar Mills Service Rules, 1991, which have been approved by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, under the Co- operative Societies Act. The fact with regard to non-compliance of the Rules, has not been disputed as on a specific question put to the workman during the cross-examination, he has admitted that the said post has not CWP No. 20384 of 2006 -3- been advertised. Nevertheless the workman was appointed on a seasonal post and, therefore, in the light of a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Morinda Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Ram Kishan, 1995 (5) SCC 653, the workman would be covered by the provisions of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act and, therefore, the termination of the workman would not amount to retrenchment. In the light of this, the period for which the workman has worked with the respondents prior to the last preceding year of his termination was actually on a seasonal post and on intermittent basis. In no year has the workman actually worked for 240 days or more except for the last preceding year of his date of termination. That being the position, the benefit, if any, can be granted to the workman for the last one year where he has completed 240 days of service. Since the appointment of the workman was not in accordance with the Rules governing his service, the workman cannot be reinstated in service. However, the workman would be entitled to compensation as held by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ishwar Singh and another, 2008 (3) SCT 789, the workman is thus entitled to Rs. 20,000/- as compensation. The writ petition is allowed. The award dated 22.05.2006 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Labour Court is set aside. The workman is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,000/-, which shall be paid to him by respondent No. 1 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE February 02, 2009 pj