IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 3145 of 2009. Date of Decision : May 22, 2009. The Divisional Forest Officer (S.F.P.), Bhiwani now The Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani. ....... Petitioner. Versus. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, and another. ....... Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Kartar Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Ghanghas, Advocate, for the respondent No. 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). Written statement on behalf of respondent No. 2 filed in the Court, is taken on record. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned award dated 26.03.2008 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Rohtak, cannot be sustained for the ground that order of reinstatement has been passed by the Labour Court on his previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 29.10.2001. It is an admitted position that the daily wagers are not appointed on sanctioned post. The workman in his statement has not asserted that his appointment was on regular post and it was as per the provisions which would govern the appointment on regular basis on a public post. He further contends that the basic requirement for holding a public post is that the appointment of the person should be as per the statutory rules governing the service. He relies C.W.P. No. 3145 of 2009. upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Ghaziabad Development Authority and another Versus Ashok Kumar and another, 2008(4) S.C.C. 261, Mahboob Deepak Versus Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, (2008) 1 S.C.C. 575, M.P. Administration Versus Tribhuwan, (2007) 9 S.C.C. 748, and State of M.P. and others Versus Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007) 1 S.C.C. 575, in support of his contention. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 on the other hand contends that the Labour Court on going through the evidence, which has been led by the parties and on the basis of non production of the records by the management which was duly summoned on an application preferred by the workman, has drawn an adverse inference and on that basis has held that there is non compliance of provisions as contained under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court has further held that juniors to the workman have been retained in service and fresh appointments have also been made, therefore, violating the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. On this basis, he contends that the award passed by the Labour Court is fully justified and does not call for any interference by this Court. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Perusal of the same would show that there is no assertion by the workman either in his claim petition or in the statement before the Labour Court that his initial appointment was on regular basis nor was it stated that it was in consonance with the statutory rules governing the service. It is an admitted position that the workman was appointed as a Beldar-cum-Mali on 15.04.1985 on daily wage basis and he continued as -2- C.W.P. No. 3145 of 2009. such with the petitioner-Management uptill 15.10.1998. That being so, in the light of the judgment relied by counsel for the petitioner, referred to above, the award of the Labour Court with regard to holding the workman entitled to reinstatement cannot be sustained. However, in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Telecom District Manager and Others Versus Kesheb Deb, 2008 (4) S.C.T. 33, and a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another, 2008(3) S.C.T. 788, the workman would be entitled to compensation in lieu of his reinstatement and for the wrongful termination of services of the workman in violation of the provisions as contained under the Industrial Disputes Act. This would be to settle equities between the parties. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned award dated 26.03.2008 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, is hereby set aside. Since the workman had worked with the petitioner-Management from 15.04.1985 to 15.10.1998 i.e. 12½ years when he was terminated from service without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, the workman is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. Direction is issued to the petitioner-Management to release the amount of compensation, as assessed above, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The writ petition petition stands disposed of in above terms. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE May 22, 2009. sjks. Whether referred to the Reporter : Yes / No. -3-