CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13849 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13849 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 14 , 2010 Harjit Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Labour Court, Patiala and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH. PRESENT: Ms. Anju Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Monica Chibber Sharma, DAG, Punjab for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has come to challenge the award passed by the Labour Court on the ground that having held his termination to be bad in law, still reinstatement was not allowed and only meager compensation of Rs.20,000/- was awarded. The petitioner was appointed as labourer/Mali on 5.8.1997 and continuously worked upto 20.5.2002. His services were terminated on 21.5.2002. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had raised an industrial dispute by serving demand notice dated 23.5.2002. On failure of conciliation proceedings, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Patiala, for adjudication. The Labour Court has given its award on 28.4.2009, wherein the claim of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13849 of 2009 -2- the petitioner for reinstatement was rejected and compensation of Rs.20,000/- was awarded. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that there is no finding that the petitioner had a backdoor entry and once it is held that the petitioner was wrongly terminated, the reinstatement was the necessary consequence, which should have followed. No doubt, the labour Court has found that the services of the workman have been terminated without following the proper procedure of law but at the same time, the finding of fact, as recorded is that the petitioner was not a permanent employee and was engaged on daily wage basis. It is also observed that the proper procedure was not followed by the respondents and that such type of ad-hoc/temporary appointments being contrary to the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution are illegal. In this regard, reference is made to the case of State of Karnatka & others Vs. Uma Devi & others, 2006 (2) LLJ, 722. Counsel for the petitioner, would still insist that in view of the law laid down in Uma Devi's Case (supra), the prayer of the petitioner could not have been declined. It is urged that the petitioner was not seeking regularization of his services, but only asking for reinstatement. The question of reinstatement would depend upon the nature of employment on which the petitioner was working. Concededly, he was a daily wager and was appointed without following the proper procedure. In this background, reinstatement may not be possible in view of the law laid down by this Court as well CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13849 of 2009 -3- as by the Apex Court. However, the compensation awarded to the petitioner, appears to be inadequate. The petitioner had served from 1997 to 2002 for nearly 5 years. Rs.20,000/- is too meager compensation. Accordingly, compensation shall stand enhanced to a sum of Rs.60,000/-. The writ petition is dismissed, subject to the above observation. September 14, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika I JUDGE