C.W.P No.5082 of 1994 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.5082 of 1994 Date of Decision: 10.07.2009 Chief Conservator of Forests, Haryana, Sector-17, Chandigarh and another .....Petitioners Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rohtak and another ...Respondents Present: Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl. A.G., Haryana. for the petitioners. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The award under challenge is a reference directing reinstatement with continuity of service and 25% of back wages. The workman had claimed to have worked w.e.f. 01.01.1989 to 10.11.1989 without any break in service but he had been terminated without notice or without following the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The only submission, which is made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner was that the applicant was only kept on daily wages to keep up watch in the Sales Depot, where wood had been stored temporarily for some time and appointment was itself never made through Employment Exchange. He had been appointed as a Chowkidar and the work in C.W.P No.5082 of 1994 -2- the Forest Department being temporary in nature, the workman, who had been engaged to do some work for a specific period and for specific purpose was liable to removed as and when the work was finished. He urged that there had been a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution when an appointment could not have been made for a post that did not exist or appointment made by a person who was not competent to appoint him. 2. The contentions of the learned counsel go unrefuted and it is not seen even from the award of the Labour Court as to how the workman had claimed that he was employed in any sanctioned post or whether any due procedure as was required to be followed for public employment had been observed or not. If there was a violation of the mandate of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the only relief that a workman could be found entitled, would be to compensate him and not to direct reinstatement. The award of the Labour Court is, therefore, set aside and the workman shall only be entitled to a compensation, which is assessed at Rs.10,000/- payable to him within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. For any delay, the amount will be loaded with simple interest @ 7.5%. The writ petition is disposed in the terms stated above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 10, 2009 Pankaj*