LPA No.287 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.287 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.01.2010 Harinder Pal Singh ............Appellant Versus Punjab Urban Planning and ..........Respondents Development Authority (PUDA) (now GLADA), Ludhiana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. R. S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellant. ALOK SINGH, J. 1. By way of present LPA, appellant/respondent No.1 is challenging the order dated 2.2.2009 passed by learned Single Judge whereby learned Single Judge set aside the award of the Labour Court directing the reinstatement and directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that on 14.3.2002, respondent No.1 served a Demand Notice under Section 2-A of the Industrial Dispute Act. Punjab Government referred the case through Additional Labour Commissioner, as an industrial dispute to respondent No.2 for adjudication under Section 10(1) (c) of the Industrial Dispute Act on 31.3.2003. LPA No.287 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Reference was made whether termination of service of respondent No.1 who had continuously worked as Bill Distributor-cum-Meter Reader purely on daily wages was entitled to reinstatement with continuously of service with full back wages? 3. Appellant filed his statement of claim alleging therein that he had continuously worked as Bill Distributor-cum-Meter Reader from 11.05.1999 and his average pay was Rs.3730 per month. His services were terminated on 27.04.2001 which was illegal, arbitrary, malafide and unfair labour practice. 4. Respondent No.1 filed a written statement taking preliminary objections pertaining to the maintainability of the reference saying respondent No.1 had never worked as Bill Distributor-cum-Meter Reader and rather he worked as Ledger Keeper purely on contract basis of muster roll and rates varying from Rs.103.25 per day in June 1999 and Rs.120.35 per day in September 2000. In November 2000, not legible daily wages at the rate of Rs.73.50 per day from November 2000 to March 2001 and did not work from 01.04.2001 to 27.04.2001 as claimed. On merits, all the pleas taken by respondent No.1 were controverted and the reference was prayed to be dismissed with costs. 5. Learned Labour Court vide award dated 14.03.2008 held termination of the workman as illegal and directed reinstatement of the respondent No.1 with continuity of service and 50% of back wages. Respondent/Writ petitioner by way of LPA No.287 of 2009 (O&M) -3- filing writ petition bearing CWP No.6913 of 2008 challenged the award which was allowed vide impugned order dated 2.2.2009 by the learned Single Judge. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Labour Court, after analysis of documents and evidence on the record, has recorded findings, that the termination of the services of the appellant by the respondent No.1 was illegal and not sustainable. Findings of the Labour Court should not be reversed by the learned Single Judge, while exercising writ jurisdiction under Articles 2226/227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Learned Single Judge has observed as under:- “It is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 was appointed on daily wage basis and the procedure as prescribed under statutory Rules governing the service while appointing the workman was not complied with. That being the position there can be no dispute that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India which enjoins upon the petitioner to make the appointments as per constitutional provisions, have not been complied with leading to an undisputed conclusion that the appointment of the respondent No.1 -workman has not been made in accordance with law. Since the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act have not been complied with while LPA No.287 of 2009 (O&M) -4- terminating the services of the respondent No.1-workman although respondent No.1-workman may not be entitled to reinstatement but he would be entitled to compensation for the period he has worked with the petitioner and it will be just and equitable to balance the equities between the parties and grant compensation to the workman in lieu of his reinstatement in service. The Court in case of State of Haryana Vs. 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 respondent No.1-workman would be entitled to compensation for wrongfully termination of his services. In the light of the said judgment, the respondent No.1 -workman is held entitled to compensation of Rs.20,000/-.” 9. It is true that while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit as an Appellate/Revisional Court and ordinarily do not disturb the award. However, there is a caveat to this principle. If this Court finds that learned Labour Court has committed manifest error of law or jurisdictional error or passed the award against settled principle of law then of course this Court can interfere in the award passed by the Labour Court. 10. Learned Single Judge has observed and recorded clear finding that appellant was daily wager and his appointment was not as per the statutory Rules. Learned Counsel for the LPA No.287 of 2009 (O&M) -5- appellant could not dispute that appellant was not the daily wager. Learned Counsel for the appellant could not show any evidence to prove that appellant was appointed as per the statutory Rules. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. A. Sankaralingam, 2008 (119) F.L.R. 398, learned Single Judge was within his jurisdiction while interfering with the award. 11. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that learned Single Judge has rightly observed that appellant may not be entitled to reinstatement but he would be entitled to compensation for the period he has worked with the writ petitioner. 12. In view of the above, we do not find any justification to interfere in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) 22.01.2010 JUDGE ashish