IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8696 of 2008 Date of decision : 26th August, 2008 Baljit Singh … Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court Patiala and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present : Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Moudgill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Present writ petition has been preferred by Baljit Singh, workman (hereinafter called the ‘workman’). He is aggrieved against the award (Annexure P-3) and has claimed that award be set aside and he be granted reinstatement with back wages and arrears and all consequential relief including continuity of service. It has been further prayed that having found that there was a violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’), the Labour Court has gravely erred in not granting consequential benefits. Workman has set out his claim in Annexure P-1, claim statement, wherein he stated that he worked as Baildar Section kauli, Gandan kheri from 01.07.1996 to 15.08.1997. It is stated that without any notice, chargesheet, inquiry or compensation, his CWP 8696 of 2008 services were terminated on 16th August, 1997 and the last wages drawn by him were Rs.1350/- per month. In the written statement (Annexure P-2) to the claim statement, it was stated that petitioner was employed on daily wage basis. He worked intermittently and there were breaks in his service. The Labour Court held that the management had failed to produce concerned attendance register, muster rolls and pay roll, bills and therefore, adverse inference has been drawn against the management and thus, it was held that testimony of the workman that he continuously worked with the management w.e.f. 1st July, 1996 to 15th August, 1997 is to be believed. Therefore, it was held that petitioner had rendered service of more than 240 days. The management has relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Municipal Council, Samrala vs. Raj Kumar 2006 (3) SCC page 81 and decision of this Court in CWP No. 15735 of 2005 titled as Nagar Panchayat, Khumano Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and others, decided on 31.07.2007. Labour Court held that the workman Baljit Singh was employed as Baildar on daily wage basis and not on regular basis and the same was done without following service rules and regulations. It was further held that the employment in question was public employment governed by rules and regulations. Therefore, no order can be passed regarding reinstatement of the petitioner. To fortify this submission, reliance was placed upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1. After it was concluded by Labour Court that petitioner had worked for 240 days, he could not be inducted into public employment for violation of Section 25 (F), and awarded Rs.2200/- as compensation. This writ petition was listed and notice of motion was issued only to the limited extent regarding enhancement of compensation. The Labour Court had awarded only 2 CWP 8696 of 2008 Rs.2200/- as compensation taking into consideration that petitioner was employed only for one year. In the present case, services of the petitioner were terminated on 16th August, 1997. He is in the corridors of courts since then. More than eleven years are going to elapse. We find that Rs.2200/- awarded as compensation was very meager. To balance the equities, we are of the view that in the present case, compensation can be enhanced and therefore, compensation of Rs.2200/- awarded by the Labour Court is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, is apt and just. With these observations, present writ petition is disposed off. [HEMANT GUPTA] JUDGE [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 26, 2008. rps 3