IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 17748 of 2007. Date of Decision : February 19, 2009. Municipal Council, Panchkula . .... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ambala, and others. ...Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. Sanjay S. Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Jai Shree Thakur, Advocate, for the respondent No. 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present case, the challenge is to the award dated 09.08.2007 (Anneuxre-P-5), vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman holding him entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity in service. Counsel for the petitioner contends that if the findings which have been recorded by the Labour Court, is taken into consideration to be correct, still the workman cannot be put back in service for the reason (i) that he does not fulfill statutory requirement for being appointed as a driver and (ii) that a public post which requires to be fulfilled in accordance with C.W.P. No. 17748 of 2007. statutory rules. The statutory rules having not been complied by making appointment of respondent-workman in service, Articles 14 and 16 stand violated. That being the position, the workman at the most can be compensated for the wrongful termination as has been held by the Labour Court but cannot be reinstated in service. In the cases of Ghaziabad Development Authority and another Versus Ashok Kumar and another, 2008(4) S.C.C. 261, Mahboob Deepak Versus Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, (2008) 1 S.C.C. 575, M.P. Administration Versus Tribhuwan, (2007) 9 S.C.C. 748, and State of M.P. and others Versus Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007) 1 S.C.C. 575, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that the post under the State is required to be filled up in terms of the Recruitment Rules and by inviting applications from all eligible candidates. The workman-respondent was engaged on daily wages without following the rules and principles of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore, even if the workman-respondent has completed 240 days of service, the said workman-respondent is not entitled to be reinstated and also for grant of back wages. The workman-respondent in the light of the Judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court referred to above, is not entitled to reinstatement against a public post nor he is entitled to any back wages. This Court in case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another, 2008(3) S.C.T. 788, has held that although a daily wager may not be entitled to reinstatement but the workman-respondent would be entitled to compensation for wrongful termination of his services. The workman-respondent has worked with management from December, 2000 to November, 2001, as per the award. In the light of the fact that the workman- -2- C.W.P. No. 17748 of 2007. respondent has no right for reinstatement in the light of above judgments, however, he is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to settle equities between the parties. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed and the award dated 09.08.2007 (Annexure-P-5), passed by the Labour Court, Ambala, is hereby set aside. The workman-respondent is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 10,000/- in lieu of his reinstatement. The management-petitioner is directed to release the said amount i.e. Rs. 10,000/- to the workman-respondent within a period of two month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The present writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE February 19, 2009. sjks. -3-