IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3399 of 2007 Date of decision : 10th September, 2008 Desh Raj … Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurgaon and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present : Mr. A.K. Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Present writ petition has been preferred by Desh Raj (hereinafter referred to as, ‘workman’) against the Executive Engineer, PWD Public Health, Division No.2, Gurgaon and SDE, PWD Public Health, Division No.1, Gurgaon praying that impugned award dated 29.08.2005 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Labour Court, Gurgaon be set aside. Labour Court, vide impugned award (Annexure P-4), held that petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement, however Labour Court awarded compensation of Rs.70,000/- for violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Civil Writ Petition No.3399 of 2007 Petitioner, on 7th December, 2008 had sent a demand notice (Annexure P-1) on the ground that he was appointed on 07.08.1995 as a Pump Operator at the rate of Rs.1548/- per month. However, his services were terminated on 04.04.1997 without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. The same grievance was reiterated in claim statement (Annexure P-2). Management had filed written statement (Annexure P-3) to the claim statement. It was stated therein that the petitioner-workman was engaged temporarily on daily wage basis. Since the employment of workman was neither in pursuance of any advertisement nor his name was requisitioned from employment exchange and no equal opportunity was afforded to similarly situated persons, therefore, termination of services of the workman does not amount to retrenchment. The workman could not be reinstated in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1. We find that the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Samrala v. Raj Kumar (2006) 3 SCC 81 is that unless an employee is appointed as per rules and regulations, his/her appointment cannot be treated to be consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Appointment given de hors the rules and regulations is liable to termination and is covered under Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Act and thus, does not amount to retrenchment. Similarly, in Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Limited (2007) 1 SCC 533, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen (2007) 1 SCC 408, Reserve Bank of India v. Gopinath Sharma and another (2006) 6 SCC 221 and UP Power Corporation Ltd. and another v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and others (2007) 5 SCC 755, it has 2 Civil Writ Petition No.3399 of 2007 been held that reinstatement of a workman in public employment will not be consistent with Article 14 unless a workman had been appointed by following rules and regulations. In Mehboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gujraula and another (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 575, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: “12. It is now well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that in a situation of this nature instead and in place of directing reinstatement with full back wages, the workmen should be granted adequate monetary compensation. [See M.P. Admn v. Tribhuban, (2007) 9 SCC 748].” In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that the award (Annexure P-4) suffers from no infirmity and petitioner was not entitled to reinstatement. However, awarding of compensation by the Labour Court is just and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. With these observations, present writ petition is dismissed. [HEMANT GUPTA] JUDGE [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE September 10, 2008. rps 3