IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 19532 of 2009 Date of decision: 10.09.2010 Jagtar Singh ...Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer and others ...Respondents Present: Mr. Satbir Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner was appointed as Beldar on daily wages on 01.06.1991 as he has statedly worked under two different schemes till he was illegally terminated on 31.12.2000. The petitioner-workman would complain that termination was without following mandatory provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He, accordingly, sought reference of the dispute for adjudication before the labour Court. The labour Court, however, declined his prayer for reinstatement and instead held him entitled to compensation of Rs. 35,000/-. Counsel for the petitioner would contend that having found that the termination was in violation of the statutory provisions, the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement instead of allowing compensation alone. The issue of reinstatement or allowing compensation in cases where workman is a daily wager appointed in violation of the rule appears to be fairly settled. The petitioner thus may not have justification to seek reinstatement in view of the nature Civil Writ Petition No. 19532 of 2009 -2- of appointment and the duties that he was called upon to perform. However, the record shows that the petitioner had worked from 1991 to 2000, may be intermittently as claimed by Mr. Rathee on the strength of muster rolls placed before the Court. The finding of fact as recorded by the labour Court is that the termination of the petitioner was in violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It may be so that the petitioner/workman had not continuously worked from 1991 to 2000. That is not on account of any fault on his part. He had worked, even though intermittently, but throughout with the respondent/management as and when the work was offered to him. Can he be thus faulted for not having performed his duty continuously. It may be so that the petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement as he was not a regular employee but still he has remained on the rolls of the management for considerably long period. The compensation of Rs. 35,000/- as allowed to the petitioner in this background appears inadequate. Accordingly, while declining his prayer for reinstatement, compensation as allowed is enhanced to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Let the amount of compensation be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. September 10, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE