Civil Writ Petition No.18467 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 15.10.2008 The Chief Engineer, RSD,Irrigation Works and another ...Petitioners Versus Suresh Kumar and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present:- Mr.Sandeep Moudgil, DAG Punjab. Mr.R.S.Manhas, Advocate for respondent No.1. 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? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order (Annexure P1) dated 4.2.2002, whereby respondent-workman has been ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service with full back wages from the date of his termination. The respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute arising out of alleged termination of his services in April, 1995. It is the case of the respondent-workman that he was engaged as skilled labourer/Supervisor on 24.10.1988 and had worked for seven years till his services were terminated and that such termination was made in violation of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. During the course of proceedings before the Labour Court, the petitioner was called upon to produce cash book keeping in view the allegation of the workman that his presence was not marked in the muster roll, though he was paid the salary for the days Civil Writ Petition No.18467 of 2002 2 he actually worked for the employer. Since the cash book was not produced, finding was returned that the workman had worked for seven years during the period alleged by the workman. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that respondent was engaged as daily wager keeping in view the exigency of work but without following any procedure for appointment through advertisement from the public and opportunity to the eligible candidates, therefore, the award reinstating the workman and paying back wages is not sustainable. This Court has examined such industrial dispute in Baljit Singh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Patiala and others, Civil Writ Petition No.8696 of 2008 decided on 26.8.2008. In view of the aforesaid judgment, we are of the view that the award of the Labour Court granting reinstatement with continuity of service is not sustainable. Consequently, the same is set aside, but we find that respondent-workman had worked for seven years prior to his termination in April 1995. Since the respondent had worked, we deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- in terms of the aforesaid judgment of this Court. In view of the aforesaid fact, the petition is allowed. However, petitioner shall pay Rs.40,000/- to the workman as compensation. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (NAWAB SINGH) 15.10.2008 JUDGE AS