IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.566 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 03.12.2009 Balwinder Singh. -----Appellant Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. --- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, dismissing the claim of the appellant for reinstatement with backwages, but granting compensation of Rs.15,000/-. 2. Case of the appellant is that he worked from 1.2.1994 to 3.5.2000 as Clerk with Nagar Panchayat but his services were terminated in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act”). He raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication. The claim was contested by taking a plea that appointment of the appellant was on temporary LPA No.566 of 2009 basis and since Nagar Panchayat had been dissolved on 6.2.1998, the workman was disengaged. The Labour Court held that though the workman had worked for more than 240 days, he was not entitled to reinstatement in view of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation v Mamni AIR 2006 SC 2427 and Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) and Ors. 2006 (4) SCC 1. However, compensation of Rs.15,000/- was directed to be paid. The workman filed a writ petition, which has been dismissed. It was held that the case of the writ petitioner was covered by the judgments relied upon in the order of the Labour Court and no enhancement was called for in the compensation awarded. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation awarded should have been a sum of Rs.3 lacs in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy v. Radhey Shyam 2008(5) SLR 566. 4. We are unable to accept the submission. 5. The order passed in the said case related to a case where award for reinstatement had already attained finality. It was held that though the matter was required to be remanded to the Labour Court, having regard to peculiar facts that 27 years had already passed and liability of Rs.8 lacs had already been accrued under the award, which had become final, it will be proper to award a sum of Rs.3 lacs as compensation. The matter 2 LPA No.566 of 2009 came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court after the management failed to carry out the award, against which writ petition had already been dismissed. The workman had moved an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, which was allowed and the said order was challenged by the management. The judgment relied upon is, thus, distinguishable. 6. In the present case, the Labour Court itself held that the workman was not entitled to reinstatement, relying on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which view has been affirmed by learned Single Judge. It has not been shown that the judgments relied upon in the impugned orders are not applicable to the case of the appellant. 7. In these circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders. 8. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 03, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3