IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.4881 of 2010 Date of decision : 25.4.2011 Nasib Singh ....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Jasmeet Singh Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for respondents No.2 and 3. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. In this writ petition the petitioner impugns the award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala dated 16.1.2009. The petitioner claimed a reference which is to the following effect :- “Whether the termination of services of workman Nasib Singh is justified or not? If not so to what relief is he entitled?” The respondents No.2 and 3 did not file any reply to the claim statement and as a consequence thereof their defence was struck off by the Labour Court vide order dated 14.2.2007. The Labour Court then went on to evaluate the material produced by the petitioner C.W.P.No.4881 of 2010 -2- during the course of proceedings and concluded that the petitioner had completed 240 days prior to the date of his termination, but instead of granting any consequential relief to him, it declined the reference on the premise that the petitioner had pleaded in his claim statement that he was a daily wager and thus held that his appointment was not in accordance with the established norms of public appointment and thus negated his claim altogether. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 tried to persuade this Court that a specific argument was raised to this effect that the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with law and thus he was not entitled to any relief even if it was held that he had completed 240 days on daily wage basis. On due consideration of the matter, I am not inclined to accept the prayer made by the learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. There was no plea raised by them that the employment of the petitioner was not in accordance with the rules or norms of public appointment. In the absence of any material which was required to be pleaded and set up by respondents No.2 and 3 in the first instance, the Labour Court could not inferentially come to the conclusion that the said appointment was a backdoor entry and not in accordance with law. Such a finding has to be negated, as it is unsustainable in law in view of the categoric observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anoop Sharma v. Executive Engineer Public Health Division No.-1, Panipat (Haryana) 2010(3) S.C.T. 319. The respondents No.2 and 3 have also not challenged the finding that the petitioner had completed 240 days of employment in the year C.W.P.No.4881 of 2010 -3- preceding his termination. In this view of the matter, this finding necessarily has to be affirmed. It has also gone uncontroverted that the petitioner had worked from January 1983 to July 14, 2004. In such an eventuality it was incumbent upon the Labour Court to see as to what was the necessary consequential relief which should have been awarded in favour of the petitioner. Some of the factors taken into consideration while evaluating the relief to be granted to a workman whose services have been wrongly terminated are length of period of employment and the promptness with which an industrial dispute is raised and a reference made thereafter. The facts reveal that the petitioner had been in continuous employment since 1983 till 2004 when his services were terminated and as observed earlier, this fact has gone uncontroverted. The demand was also raised promptly in the year 2004 and the reference was forwarded in 2005. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be squarely met if the petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service with 40% back wages. Ordered accordingly. 25.4.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss