IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 5727 of 2001 (O/M). Date of Decision : February 12 , 2009. State of Haryana. .... Petitioner. Versus. Shish Pal and others. ...Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Godara, Advocate, for the respondent No. 1. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 14.06.2000 (Annexure-P-11), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, wherein the workman has been held entitled to reinstatement on his previous post with continuity of service and 25% back wages w.e.f. 06.06.1994 onwards. Counsel for the petitioner contends that once the Court has come to a conclusion that the workman has as a matter of fact been negligent in his conduct and had remained absent from duty without sanctioned leave, the Court could not turn around and say that as the inquiry has not been held, therefore, the principles of natural justice have not been complied with, leading to holding that termination of the workman was not in accordance with law. He further contends that the finding with regard to the provisions C.W.P. No. 5727 of 2001. of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with, also cannot be sustained. I have heard counsel for the parties and also have gone through the records of the case and impugned award. Perusal of the award would show that the Labour Court had on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, have given a finding on the issue. The issue before the Labour Court was as to whether the termination of the service of Shish Pal is justified and in order ? If not to what relief he is entitled to ? It is in this context that the evidence which has been led by the parties has been taken into consideration. The factual aspect that no inquiry has been held against the workman before the petitioner-department terminated his service, has not been disputed before the Labour Court. In view of the categoric admission on the part of the petitioner about non holding of enquiry before the Labour Court and in view of the fact that the Labour Court has not held any inquiry as per Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act and no issue with regard to the question whether any inquiry has been held in accordance with law and whether the same is justified or not has been framed, therefore, the conclusion drawn by the Labour Court that the inquiry has not been held resulting in the principles of natural justice having not been complied with, is quite justified. It is not in dispute that the respondent has been working with the petitioner-department for the last about 10 years and thus there was no occasion for the Labour Court to reject the contention of the workman that provisions of Section 25- F of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with in the light of the admission of the petitioner-department that no inquiry and no -2- C.W.P. No. 5727 of 2001. retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman, therefore, the termination was in violation of the Industrial Disputes Act. Counsel for the petitioner now contends that in view of the fact that the workman was a daily wager and despite of non compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the workman cannot be held to be entitled to be reinstated, as his appointment was not in accordance with the statutory rules as it was a public post. The requirement of appointment as per statute on such public post were mandatory for complying with the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the petitioner contends that 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, 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. The workman-respondent was engaged on daily wages without following the rules and principles of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore, even if the workman-respondent has completed 240 days of service, the said workman- respondent is not entitled to be reinstated and also for grant of back wages. The workman-respondent in the light of the Judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court referred to above, is not entitled to reinstatement against a public post nor he is entitled to any back wages. This Court in case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another, 2008(3) S.C.T. 788, has held that although a daily wager may -3- C.W.P. No. 5727 of 2001. not be entitled to reinstatement but the workman-respondent would be entitled to compensation for wrongful termination of his services. In the light of the fact that the workman-respondent has no right for reinstatement in the light of above judgments, however, he is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 60,000/- to settle equities between the parties. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed and the award dated 14.06.2000 (Annexure-P-9), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, is hereby set aside holding him entitled to reinstatement and back wages. The workman-respondent is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 60,000/- in lieu of his reinstatement. The petitioner-department is directed to release the said amount i.e. Rs. 60,000/- to the workman-respondent within a period of two month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The present writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE February 12, 2009. sjks. -4-