C.W.P No. 9160 of 1990 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 9160 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision : November 30, 2010 Gulshan Lal, ...... Petitioner v. The Municipal Committee, Rohtak and others, ...... Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. H.N.Mehtani, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Manmeet Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court whereby even though the termination of services of the petitioner was clearly held to be violative of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”), yet reinstatement has not been ordered but the workman has been fobbed off with a compensation of ` 5,000/- only even though he had admittedly worked for more than 8 years. Counsel for respondent No.1-employer has argued that it is not C.W.P No. 9160 of 1990 (O&M) ::2:: disputed that the petitioner had been unauthorizedly employed even though there was no post against which he could have been appointed. On objection in this regard, the Municipal Committee, Rohtak had no option but to terminate his services. That may be so. However, a finding has been given by the Labour Court (and which has not been challenged by the Management) that the condition precedent before retrenchment was not fulfilled in so much as compensation as envisaged by Section 25F(b) of the Act was not paid. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that in such cases the only option before a Court would be to order reinstatement with all consequential benefits. That may be so in the case of an independent employer. However, it is not disputed that the employer in the present case did not have such an unfettered right to employ as many as persons as it felt necessary but under the law could only fill up such posts as were sanctioned by the competent authority. It cannot also be lost sight of that the workman had initially joined service in 1978 and, thus, as fairly conceded by counsel for the petitioner, would have either attained the age of superannuation or would be close to it. In these circumstances, the only option left before this Court would be to enter into the dangerous mind-field of equity and try/workout a formula whereby at-least some succour is given to the workman. In this context, the Court cannot also be unmindful of the fact that the petitioner- workman being a skilled Electrician would not have found it impossible to earn a living. After balancing all these factors, in my opinion, it would be C.W.P No. 9160 of 1990 (O&M) ::3:: in the interest of justice if respondent No.1 pays an amount of ` 1 lac to the petitioner within two months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. It is made clear that in case the said amount is not paid to the petitioner within the stipulated period, he would be entitled to future interest thereon @ 12% p.a from 1.12.2010. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of, with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 30, 2010. JUDGE `kk'