HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.5302 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.11.2011 **** Manoj Kumar . . . . Petitioner VS. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Hisar & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Sandeep Thakan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG Haryana **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner was statedly engaged as a Mechanical Fitter Helper of 22nd May, 2002 and was posted at Pump House at Village Fertia Kehar in Loharu Sub Division. He was allegedly retrenched on 30.8.2003 without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, ‘the Act’) prompting him to raise the industrial dispute. (2). The respondent-Department though denied the relationship of master and servant but the Labour Court on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence rejected the defence plea and accepted the petitioner’s plea that he was employed by the respondent-Department. The CWP No.5302 of 2011.doc - 2 – Labour Court relied upon the logbook (Ex.W1) as well asthe deposition of the witnesses including Chowkidar and the Junior Engineer and also drew adverse inference against the Department for not producing the attendance registers and then held as follows:- “This deserves to be mentioned here that in the written statement it is pleaded by the respondents that the workman had not worked with them for even a single day but in their evidence the respondents have tried to set up a case that the workman had worked under the control of contractors Devender and Jagram and payments were made to him through these contractors. However, the respondents did not produce the said record nor did they suggest so to the workman in cross- examination. Hence, it cannot be said that the workman had worked under the control of the contractors and that the payment was made to him through contractors. In the circumstances, it can be presumed that the workman worked with the respondent as Mechanical Fitter Helper from 22.05.2002 to 30.08.2003 and he completed 240 days in 12 preceding months of his termination and that his services were illegally retrenched without following the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act.” (3). Having arrived at the conclusion that the workman had completed 240 days in a calendar year before termination of his services, the Labour Court has granted him 2 CWP No.5302 of 2011.doc - 3 – compensation of Rs.4000/- only in lieu of reinstatement in service. (4). The aggrieved workman has approached this Court. (5). Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that no direction for reinstatement of the petitioner in service need to be issued as he was not employed in accordance with the rules or in consonance with the principle of equality. No advertisement was issued nor candidature of other eligible candidate considered while engaging the petitioner. That apart, the daily-wage service rendered by the petitioner for a year or so will not inure him the claim of reinstatement. However, it does appear that the grant of compensation of Rs.4000/- is too meager and insufficient. The guiding principle is to award Rs.20000/- for a year’s service. (6). Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, I am of the considered view that it would be fair, reasonable and just to enhance the compensation from Rs.4000/- to Rs.25000/-. (7). Ordered accordingly. (8). The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part; and the impugned award dated 21.05.2010 (Annexure P3) is modified to the extent that the petitioner-workman is held entitled to a lumpsum compensation of Rs.25000/- 3 CWP No.5302 of 2011.doc - 4 – (including Rs.4000/- if already paid as per the Award of the Labour Court). The enhanced compensation shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (9). Disposed of accordingly. Dasti. 15.11.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge 4