IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.6598 of 2010 Date of Decision:- 09.04.2010 Karnail Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. P.O.L.C., Chandigarh and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 3.12.2009 (Annexure P-1) vide which although the Labour Court has held that the services of the workman-petitioner were terminated in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but he was only entitled to compensation for his illegal termination and not reinstatement in the light of the fact that the workman was not appointed in consonance with the Statutory Rules governing the service nor was he working against a regular sanctioned post. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Award passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained. He contends that once a finding has been recorded by the Labour Court that the termination of the services of the petitioner is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the workman should have been ordered to be reinstated in service. His further contention is that the amount of compensation of Rs.10,000/- which has been granted to the petitioner is on the lower side and, therefore, the said amount deserves to be enhanced. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through C.W.P.No.6598 of 2010 -2- the records of the case. The findings as recorded by the Labour Court are that the petitioner was appointed on 18.11.2002 as Mali-cum-Groundman on part-time basis for four hours daily and continued as such till 27.2.2004. His services were terminated without complying with the provisions of the Act as neither compensation was paid nor pay in lieu of notice or notice was given as mandated under Section 25-F of the Act. That being so, the termination of the petitioner was held to be illegal. The Labour Court further proceeded to evaluate the evidence led by the parties and came to the conclusion that the appointment of the petitioner was on part time basis. His appointment was not in consonance with the Statutory Rules governing the service nor was he appointed against a sanctioned post and, therefore, was not entitled to reinstatement in service. This stand of the Labour Court is fully justified and in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of District Telecom Manager and others vs. Keshab Dev, 2008 (4) S.C.T.33 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ishwar Singh and another, 2008 (3) S.C.T. 788. Since the provisions of the Act were not complied with, the Labour Court proceeded to grant to the petitioner-workman the compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- for his illegal termination. Since the workman had worked with the respondents from 18.11.2002 to 27.2.2004 which comes to a little over one year, the compensation of Rs.10,000/- granted to the petitioner is adequate and does not call for any interference by this Court. Dismissed. April 09, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE