IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1512 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.11.2010 Dalbir Sharma … Appellant Versus Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh and others. …Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.M.Kumar Hon’ble Ms.Justice Ritu Bahri Present: Mr.Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.Kumar, J. This instant appeal by the workman under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against order dated 6.05.2010 passed by learned Single Judge setting aside the award of the Labour Court. It has been held by the learned Single Judge that on account of non-production of record, the assertion made by the workman that he had completed 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination has to be accepted. Accordingly, it has been informed that there was violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 (in short ‘the Act’), the workman has rendered service on the post of daily wage electrician w.e.f. 25.11.1999 to 12.11.2000. It is now well settled that there is no rule of law that a reinstatement is to follow automatically. It will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether reinstatement is in order or not. The present case is not the one where the relief of reinstatement could be given and various factors have been noticed by the learned Single Judge in support of denial of the said relief. The relief of lump sum compensation of LPA No.1512 of 2010 (O&M) Rs.20,000/- has been given in lieu of the reinstatement which is well supported by the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Telecom District Manager and others v. Kesheb Deb 2008 (4) SCT 33. We find no merit in the appeal. Dismissed. (M.M.Kumar ) Judge (Ritu Bahri) Judge 18.11.2010 sd 2