LPA No. 537 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 537 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.01.2010 Gurmej Singh ....Appellant Versus Gurdaspur Coopeative Sugar Mills Ltd. and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh Present: Mr. R.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellant. ... Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. (Oral). 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge rejecting the claim of the workman for reinstatement and instead allowing compensation of Rs.20,000/-. 2. The workman was employed with the management of the Gurdaspur Sugar Mills and raised an industrial dispute alleging that his services were illegally terminated on 10.8.1997 without following due procedure. The dispute was referred for adjudication to the Labout Court. Claim of the workman was contested by taking the plea that he was not appointed on permanent basis. His appointment was on casual basis intermittently without any formal letter of appointment. The Labour Court held that the workman did not complete 240 days in the preceding twelve calendar months and thus there was no violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workman challenged the award by filing writ petition. LPA No. 537 of 2009 2 3. Learned Single Judge upheld the plea that the workman had completed 240 days in the last twelve calendar months preceding the date of his termination. It was held that appointment of the workman was on seasonal basis and was not made by following Punjab State Cooperative Sugar Mills Service Rules, 1991. The workman admitted that the post was never advertised. In such a situation, it was held on the basis of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Morinda Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Ram Kishan, 1995 (5) SCC 653, that the case of the workman will fall under Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Act and termination of services of the workman would not amount to retrenchment and provisions of Section 25-F of the Act will not be attracted. However, after referring to a Division Bench judgement of this Court in State of Haryana Vs. Ishwar Singh and another, 2008(3) SCT 789, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was awarded as compensation. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 6. We are unable to find any error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge based on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Morinda Cooperative Sugar Mills' case (supra) holding that there is no violation of Section 25F of the Act. In such a situation, claim of the workman for reinstatement could not be accepted. This being the situation, compensation granted being ex-gratia in nature, there is no scope for enhancement. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon judgement of learned Single Bench in Range Forest Officer, Rewari and another Vs. Ram Chander and another, 2009(4) Law Herald (P&H) 2561 to submit that even a daily wager was entitled to reinstatement though he may not be entitled to regularisation. The said view was referred to in judgement of this Court dated LPA No. 537 of 2009 3 2.12.2009 in LPA No.534 of 2009, Anil Kumar Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and another and it was held that the view being in conflict with DB judgement of this Court, could not be followed. Relevant observations are as under:- “9. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to distinguish the judgment relied upon by learned Single Judge. Judgments relied upon by the appellant are distinguishable as therein effect of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Secretary, State of Karnataka V. Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1 has not been considered, except in Range Forest Officer (supra) which is a judgment of learned Single Judge. The said judgment is contrary to law laid down in Ishwar Singh (supra) which is a judgment by a Division Bench. 8. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge ( Alok Singh ) Judge 21.01.2010 sk.