IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.2021 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 26.05.2009 The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Bhiwani and others ....Petitioner(s) vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Rohtak and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Kartar Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the petitioners. Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for respondent No.2. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the award dated 8.2.2008 (Annexure P-5) 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 her previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 13.11.2000. Counsel for the petitioners contends that as has been proved on record, respondent No.2-workman had worked with the Management from June, 1988 till December, 1999. He further submits that even if the finding returned by the Labour Court that the persons junior to respondent No.2- workman had been retained in service and there is violation of the provisions of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( for C.W.P.No.2021 of 2009 -2- short 'the Act' ) and, as such, the termination of the services of the workman was not in consonance with the Act, is taken to be correct then also, the respondent-workman cannot be reinstated in service as the Labour Court has directed her reinstatement on the post being held by the workman, as a daily wager, who when appointed, does not hold a post and further the appointment of the workman at the initial stage was de hors the statutory rules governing the service. He submits that there is no assertion of the respondent-workman that she was appointed on a post on regular basis. On this basis, he contends that in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that such like employees cannot be ordered to be reinstated in service, the impugned award deserves to be set aside. He relies upon the judgments of 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. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-workman submits that the Labour Court has rightly, on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, proceeded to decide the reference. It is an admitted position that the services of the workman were terminated without following the provisions as contained under the Act and, therefore, the Labour Court had rightly ordered her reinstatement. He, on this basis, contends that the impugned award deserves to be upheld. C.W.P.No.2021 of 2009 -3- I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. As per the position which has emerged after going through the impugned award, the workman had worked with the Management from June, 1988 till December, 1999 which comes to eleven and half years with the Management. It is also an admitted position that the termination of the services of the workman was not in consonance with the Act as the provisions of Section 25-G have been violated. In the light of the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners and in view of the admitted fact that the appointment of the respondent-workman was not as per the statutory rules governing the service nor was it on regular post after complying with the procedure and process of selection for appointment on regular posts as mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the workman cannot be reinstated in service. The impugned award dated 8.2.2008 Annexure P-5, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. 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 case of State of Haryana vs. Ishwar Singh and another, 2008 (3) S.C.T. 788, since the services of the workman have been terminated in violation of the provisions as contained under the Act, to balance the equities between the parties, it would be just and appropriate that the workman be held entitled to compensation for the period of work she had put in with the Management. Respondent No.2-workman has worked with the petitioner- Management from June 1988 till December 1998 i.e. for a period of eleven C.W.P.No.2021 of 2009 -4- and half years and, therefore, is held entitled to compensation of Rs.1,15,000/-. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed; the impugned award dated 8.2.2008 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, is hereby set aside, however, the workman is held entitled to compensation of Rs.1,15,000/-. A direction is issued to the petitioners to release the amount of compensation to the respondent-workman within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. At this stage, counsel for the respondent-workman submits that in pursuance to the award passed by the Labour Court impugned herein, the respondent-workman has been taken back in service. He submits that the workman would make a representation to the petitioner-Management which may be considered sympathetically. If such a representation is made, the same be considered sympathetically. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. May 26, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No