C.W.P.No.843 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.843 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 05.05.2009 The District Education Officer, Rohtak and another ....Petitioner(s) vs. Smt.Ompati and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the petitioners. Mr.S.P.Chahar, Advocate for workman -respondent No.1. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the award dated 10.2.2006 (Annexure P-6) 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 on the previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of the demand notice i.e.8.4.1999. Counsel for the petitioner contends that even if the findings as recorded by the Labour Court are taken to be correct, the workman cannot be reinstated in service as she was merely working as part time sweeper and was not appointed on regular basis nor was her appointment in accordance with the statutory rules governing the service. He contends that C.W.P.No.843 of 2007 -2- in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ghaziabad Development Authority and another vs. Ashok Kumar and another, 2008 (4) SCC 261, Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, (2008) 1 SCC 575, M.P. Administration vs. Tribhuwan, (2007) 9 SCC 748, Uttranchal Forest Development Corpn. vs. M.C.Joshi, (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 813, State of M.P. and others vs. Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007) SCC 575 the award impugned herein cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-workman submits that the findings as recorded by the Labour Court are based on the evidence led by the parties and, therefore, do not call for any interference. In view of the fact that the provisions as contained under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with while terminating the services of the workman, the consequence thereof was reinstatement in service which has been ordered by the Labour Court. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. It is not in dispute that the appointment of the workman was on part time basis, which obviously was not a regular appointment and, therefore, not in consonance with the statutory rules governing the service. That being so, in the light of the above judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, the award dated 10.2.2006 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, cannot be sustained. However, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of District Telecom Manager and others vs. Keshab Dev, 2008 (4) S.C.T.33 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the C.W.P.No.843 of 2007 -3- case of State of Haryana vs. Ishwar Singh and another, 2008 (3) S.C.T. 788, the workman would be entitled to compensation for the termination of her services in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workman has put in service with the petitioner from 20.12.1992 to 31.3.1999 and, therefore, she is held entitled to compensation of Rs.70,000/-. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned award dated 10.2.2006 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Rohtak is hereby set aside. The workman is held entitled to Rs.70,000/- as compensation. A direction is issued to the petitioners to release the amount of compensation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. May 05, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No