IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 19276 of 2008. Date of Decision : May 14, 2009. Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department Canal Rest House, Bhiwani. Now Executive Engineer, Bond Water Services Division, Bhiwani. ....... Petitioner. Versus. Shri Devender c/o Chetan Anand, District President B.M.S., Bhiwani, and others. ....... Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioner. Mr. Parmod Parmar, Advocate, for the respondent No. 1. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 30.11.2007 (Annexure-P-5), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman, holding him entitled to reinstatement on previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 12.08.1999. Counsel for the petitioner contends that even if the findings as recorded by the Labour Court are taken to be correct that there is violation of the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G, and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act but still the workman would not be entitled to reinstatement in service as C.W.P. No. 19276 of 2008. his appointment was on purely temporary basis as a casual labourer. He further contends that as the appointment of the workman was not on a sanctioned post neither was it a regular post nor the statutory rules governing the service were complied with and the workman was not holding the post which would entitle him to reinstatement in service. He further contends that the reinstatement as ordered by the Labour Court on his previous post is illegal for the reason that his appointment was neither on regular post nor on a sanctioned post as he was appointed as a casual labourer. He further contends that a person entitled to reinstatement in service should have been appointed in accordance with the statutory rules governing the service and further compliance of the principles as envisaged under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India were mandatory which in the present case have admittedly not been followed. He relies upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Ghaziabad Development Authority and another Versus Ashok Kumar and another, 2008(4) S.C.C. 261, Mahboob Deepak Versus Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, (2008) 1 S.C.C. 575, M.P. Administration Versus Tribhuwan, (2007) 9 S.C.C. 748, and State of M.P. and others Versus Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007) 1 S.C.C. 575, wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that the post under the State is required to be filled up in terms of the Recruitment Rules and by inviting applications from all eligible candidates, if not so filled, the employer would have no right to reinstatement in service even if Industrial Disputes Act is violated while terminating the services. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand in the light of the above judgments submits that the workman may not be entitled to -2- C.W.P. No. 19276 of 2008. reinstatement in service in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court but in the light of the judgment of Telecom District Manager and others Versus Kesheb Deb, 2008 (4) S.C.T. 33, and a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another, 2008(3) S.C.T. 788, the workman would be entitled to compensation for the period he had worked with the Management. He contends that since the workman had put in service with the Management from 01.12.1996 to 01.08.1999 and as per the findings recorded by the Labour Court, the provisions as contained under the Industrial Disputes Act having not been complied with at the time of termination of the services of the workman, he should be held entitled to compensation. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The position which emerges from the above assertions and after going through the records of the case is that the workman was appointed as a casual labourer without complying with the statutory rules governing the service as well as the mandate of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the abovementioned cases, reliance whereof has been placed by counsel for the petitioner, the workman would not be entitled to reinstatement in service. However, in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Telecom District Manager and others Versus Kesheb Deb (supra), and a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another (supra), the workman is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 25,000/- in lieu of his reinstatement and also as his termination from service was in violation of the provisions as contained in the Industrial Disputes Act. -3- C.W.P. No. 19276 of 2008. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned award, dated 30.11.2007 (Annexure-P-5), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, is hereby set aside, however, the workman is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 25,000/- as assessed above. The petitioner is directed to release the amount of compensation to the workman as assessed above within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE May 14, 2009. sjks. Whether referred to the Reporter - Yes / No. -4-