IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1117 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.2.2010 Ajaypal Singh. -----Appellant Vs. Presiding Officer & another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Chetan Slathia, Advocate for the appellant. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition of the respondent -management against award of reinstatement with backwages and continuity of service. 2. The workman worked for about two years on temporary basis as Work Mistry and his services were terminated. The workman raised an industrial dispute alleging violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act”). The Labour Court upheld the claim of the workman and directed reinstatement with backwages and continuity of service. The management challenged the said award, by submitting that LPA No.1117 of 2009 appointment to a public post having been made without following the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution, reinstatement was not justified and at best, the workman could be given compensation, if it was held that there was violation of Section 25-F of the Act. 3. Learned Single Judge upheld the said plea, after referring to judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority and another v. Ashok Kumar and another 2008(4) SCC 261, Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula (2008) 1 SCC 575, M. P. Administration v. Tribhuwan (2007) 9 SCC 748, State of M.P. and others v. Lalit Kumar Verma (2007) 1 SCC 575 and Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai and another 2006(II) SCC 684, Telecom District Manager and others v. Keshab Deb 2008(8) SCC 402 and Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ishwar Singh and another 2008(3) SCT 788. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that award of the Labour Court was upheld by this Court in the case of another workman vide order dated 18.10.1996 in C.W.P. No.7045 of 1993 Haryana Warehouse Corporation v. Presiding Officer and another. 2 LPA No.1117 of 2009 6. We are unable to accept the submission. After the judgment of this Court in Haryana Warehouse Corporation (supra), several judgments have been delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, holding that reinstatement of a workman to a public post could not be allowed if the workman has not been recruited after following the mandatory requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The said judgment of learned Single Judge, given in the year 1996, which is in conflict with above judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, cannot be followed. 7. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 8. The appeal is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE February 16, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3