IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.16130 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 10.02.2009 Divisional Forest Officer, (Territorial), Bhiwani ....Petitioner(s) vs. Smt.Santra and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Kartar Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the petitioner. Mr.R.A.Sheoran, Advocate for the respondent-workman. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, challenge is to award dated 5.5.2004 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman holding her entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service with 50% back-wages from the date of demand notice. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent- workman was a daily wager and even if the finding as recorded by the Labour Court that the workman has worked from 4.7.1993 till 7.11.1999 is accepted, then also the initial appointment of the workman was not in accordance with the statutory rules governing her service and no advertisement calling upon applications for the said post of Mali were called for, there has been non-compliance of Articles 14 and 16 of the C.W.P.No.16130 of 2008 -2- Constitution of India. In view of this, the workman cannot be ordered to be reinstated in service. Counsel for the respondent-workman contends that in compliance with award dated 5.5.2004 passed by the Labour Court, respondent No.1-workman has been taken back in service and she is continuing as such since the year 2004. He further contends that there is a delay of more than 4 years in challenging the award which has gone unexplained and, therefore, the present writ petition cannot be entertained. He further contends that the persons junior to the workman were allowed to continue initially when she was terminated and thereafter also, many people have been appointed and are still continuing in service. In case the present situation is allowed to continue, it would be perpetually violating the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the Labour Court. The delay on the part of the petitioner in challenging the award has not been disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. However, in the light of the fact that in case the workman is allowed to be reinstated in service, it would amount to perpetuating an illegality which has been initially committed while making the appointment of the workman. It is not in dispute that the statutory rules governing the service were not complied with while the initial appointment was made and further that it is a public appointment and, therefore, the principles as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution have not been complied with. Mere delay, therefore, cannot be taken as a ground for non entertaining the writ petition in the present facts and circumstances of the case. The C.W.P.No.16130 of 2008 -3- contention of the counsel for the respondent that the persons junior to the workman have been retained in service by the petitioner, also cannot be made a ground for rejecting the submissions as put-forth by the counsel for the petitioner. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Ishwar Singh and another, 2008 (3) S.C.T. 788, the Division Bench of this Court has held that a daily wage employee, even in case there is non-compliance of the Act and there is violation of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H, is not entitled to reinstatement but would be entitled to compensation. In the said judgment also, compensation has been granted to the workman. Following the judgment of this Court in the case of Ishwar Singh's case (supra), the award dated 5.5.2004 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak is hereby set aside. The workman who has worked with the respondents from 4.7.1993 till 7.11.1999 is held entitled to compensation of Rs.80,000/- so as to settle the equities between the parties. The petitioner is directed to make the payment of the compensation of Rs.80,000/- within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. February 10, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE