LPA No. 1391 of 2011 -1- In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh LPA No. 1391 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.12.2011 Rakesh Kumar ....... Petitioner Versus Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurgaon and others ........ Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina **** Present : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? M.M. Kumar, J. 1. These two Letter Patent Appeals* under Clause X of the Letters Patent are directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14.5.2010. 2. The finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while accepting that of the Labour Court clearly spell out that the post of part-time Water Carrier came to an end and after the termination of the appellant no other person was employed in his place. It is patent that no junior to the appellant-petitioner was continuing and there was no sanctioned post. There is no finding that Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act was violated. The finding of the learned Single Judge is that the petitioner has entered the service in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid finding is based on the award of the Labour Court and LPA No. 1391 of 2011 -2- it was not for the first time that the High Court has recorded such a finding, which has been dealt with by referring to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Harjinder Singh v. State Warehousing Corporation 2010(3) SCC 192. Learned Single Judge has still awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the reason that the appellant-workman has discharged duties from 7.9.1994 to 31.3.2001. 3. We have heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the appellants, who has argued that the compensation should be assessed in accordance with the principle laid down in the case of Suresh Chander vs. Nagar Palika, Rajsamand and anothers 2011(3) S.C.T. 566. The facts of the aforesaid case are entirely different than the one in hand. In the present case there are categorical finding by the learned Labour Court that the entry of the petitioner into service was in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. There is also a categorical finding that there is no post available with the respondents at the place where the appellant-petitioner was appointed. All those facts are missing in the case on which reliance has been placed. Moreover the appellant- workman was merely engaged as a part-time Water Carrier. 4. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in these appeals, which do not warrant admission. Accordingly, both the appeals stand dismissed. 5. A copy of this order be placed on record of each concerned file. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 23.12.2011 'sp' LPA No. 1391 of 2011 -3- * Sr. No. Case No. & Year Title 1. LPA No. 1391 of 2011 Rakesh Kumar v. Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurgaon 2. LPA No. 1392 of 2011 Bakshish Kumar v. Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurgaon (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 23.12.2011 'sp'