IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 17931 of 2007. Date of Decision : January 29, 2009. The Executive Engineer P.W.D. (B/R) Branch, Jhajjar Division, Jhajjar. ..... Petitioner. Versus. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, and another. .... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 – Ex-parte. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present petition, the prayer is for quashing of the award dated 12.03.2004 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Rohtak, vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman with a direction to reinstate the workman with continuity of service on his previous post with 50% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. from 27.01.2000. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that even if findings which have been recorded by the Labour Court is accepted even then the workman is not entitled for reinstatement in the service in view of the fact that it is a public post and it has neither been alleged by the petitioner that the initial appointment of the workman was as per statutory rules governing the C.W.P. No. 17931 of 2007. service nor has it been asserted that any selection process had gone into or the other people were given opportunity to compete with him. He submits that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore, have been violated and in the light of this position with regard to initial appointment, the reinstatement of the workman by way of award is totally illegal. In the light of the Judgments passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in cases reported 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, the workman is not entitled to reinstatement against a public post nor is he entitled to any back wages. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the workman was employed on purely daily wage basis on a fixed salary w.e.f. 10.04.1998. He submits that at the most the workman would be entitled to compensation for the period he has worked with the petitioner but he cannot be reinstated in service in the light of Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another, 2008(3) S.C.T. 788. The Division Bench of this Court has held that a daily wage employee even in case there is non compliance of the Act and there is violation of Sections 25-F, 25-G, and 25-H is not entitled to reinstatement but would be entitled to compensation. In the said Judgment also, this Court was pleased to grant compensation to the workman. Following the Judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another (supra), the award dated -2- C.W.P. No. 17931 of 2007. 12.03.2004 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, is hereby set aside. The workman who has worked with the respondents from 10.04.1998 to 31.12.1999 is about two years, is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to settle the equities between the parties. A direction is issued to the petitioner to make the payment of compensation of Rs. 20,000/- within a period of two months from today. This petition stands disposed of accordingly. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 29,2009. sjks. -3-