IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 14170 of 2007 (O/M). Date of Decision : February 26, 2009. The Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, P.W.D. (B/R), Punjab, S.C.O. 55-56, Sector-17-C, Chandigarh and others. .... Petitioners. Versus. Shri Amrik Singh and another. ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Ms. Monika Chhibbar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the petitioners. Mr. R.K. Gautam, Advocate, for the respondent No. 1. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 05.10.2006 (Annexure-P-1), vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman holding him entitled to service with continuity but without back wages. Counsel for the petitioner-management contends that even if the findings which have been recorded by the Labour Court, Chandigarh, are accepted to be correct but still reinstatement of the respondent No.1- workman on a public post, which was filled without compliance of the statutory provisions governing the service, the reinstatement of the respondent No.1-workman could not have been thus ordered. She further contends that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India having not been C.W.P. No. 14170 of 2007. complied with when the initial appointment of the workman was made, therefore, the illegality which has occurred in the initial appointment, the respondent No.1-workman cannot be allowed to continue at this stage which would call for interference by this Court. Counsel for the respondent No. 1-workman contends that the award passed by the Labour Court is based on the facts that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with, therefore, the respondent No. 1.-workman had right to be reinstated on the post on which he was working. Counsel for the petitioner-management contends relying upon the judgments of 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, that the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 respondent No. 1.-workman 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 is he entitled to any back wages. -2- C.W.P. No. 14170 of 2007. 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 not be entitled to reinstatement but the workman-respondent would be entitled to compensation for wrongful termination of his services. The workman-respondent has worked with management from July, 1994 till May, 1996, as per the award. In the light of the fact that the respondent- workman has no right for reinstatement in the light of above judgments, however, he is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to settle equities between the parties. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed, the award dated 05.10.2006 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh, is hereby set aside. The respondent No. 1-workman is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,000/- in lieu of his reinstatement. The management-petitioner is directed to release the said amount i.e. Rs. 20,000/- to the respondent No.1-workman within a period of two month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The present writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Counsel for the respondent No.1-workman contends that the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with and he has not been paid last wages drawn by the petitioner- management as per the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. An affidavit to that effect has also been filed by the respondent No.1- workman that he was not gainfully employed during the period as per requirement of Section 17-B of the Act. -3- C.W.P. No. 14170 of 2007. Counsel for the petitioner-management states that the last pay drawn as per his claim under Section 17-B of the Act, would be paid to him alongwith compensation as assessed by this Court. Direction is issued to the petitioner-management that the amount payable to the respondent No. 1-workman under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act be paid to him alongwith compensation amount as assessed above within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE February 26, 2009. sjks. Whether referred to the Reporter - Yes / No. -4-