C.W.P. No.5787 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.5787 of 2000 Date of Decision: 20.08.2009 Ashok Kumar .....Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak and others ...Respondents Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl. A.G., Haryana 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 in challenge is one of rejection of the reference sought by the workman on the ground that the termination of his appointment was illegal. The Labour Court found that the workman had been appointed on 20.08.1990 and he had worked in the post as Octroi Clerk upto 15.06.1993. He held that the termination had been made without serving any notice and after recording a finding that the workman had more than 240 days of continuous service, held that there was a violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, while considering whether the workman's demand for reinstatement was justified, the Labour Court examined the contention made on behalf of the respondents that the relevant rules namely Haryana Municipal Services (Integration, Recruitment and Conditions C.W.P. No.5787 of 2000 -2- of Service) Rules, 1982 gave only to the Deputy Commissioner the power as Appointing Authority to appoint Octroi Clerks and that a President who admittedly had appointed the workman did not have any such authority. The Labour Court found the appointment, therefore, to be illegal and found that the workman was not entitled to any relief. It has been authoritatively held by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi and Others 2006 (4) SCC 1 that in matters of public appointment, there cannot be adjudication for regularization or approval of appointments made de hors the recruitment rules. The claim for reinstatement was correctly denied to the workman. The only relief that could be considered, if at all, is to compensate the workman for a termination effected without serving a notice and following the procedure under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. In my view, awarding to the workman a compensation of Rs.35,000/- shall accord with justice, which shall be paid to the workman within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the amount shall bear simple interest @7.5% per annum. 2. The award of the Labour Court is modified to the extent indicated above and the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 20, 2009 Pankaj*