IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.22480 of 2011 Date of Decision : December 05, 2011. National Horticulture Research and Development Foundation .....Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court-I, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.D.R.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner-Management is aggrieved by the Award dated 19.2.2010 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, granting a lump-sum amount of Rs.75,000/- to the second respondent-workman in lieu of reinstatement in service. The categorical finding of fact returned by the Labour Court and which is broadly not disputed by the petitioner-Management is that the second respondent-workman was engaged as a Store Attendant on adhoc basis on 9.5.1995 and his appointment was further extended from time to time till 31.12.1996. The services of the respondent-workman were dispensed with w.e.f. 1.1.1997 without paying any retrenchment CWP No.22480 of 2011 [2] compensation and without complying with the provisions laid down under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workman raised an industrial dispute which has been answered in his favour by the Labour Court vide the impugned Award to the extent that instead of reinstatement in service, he has been granted a lump-cum compensation of Rs.75,000/-. The Labour Court held that the repeated engagements of the workman amounts to unfair labour practice, hence protection under Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not available to the petitioner- Management. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the records. In my considered view, no interference by this Court is called for in the impugned Award for the reason that the workman admittedly had worked for more than 240 days in a year preceding his retrenchment w.e.f. 1.1.1997. The plea that the project in which the workman was engaged was closed down, did not absolve the petitioner from complying with the mandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said plea however, has rescued the petitioner-Management from the consequential relief of reinstatement of the workman in service which is the normal rule to be followed where retrenchment is found to be illegal. The compensation of Rs.75,000/- is also not too higher to be interfered with by this Court. Dismissed. December 05, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE