IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 12055 of 2008. Date of Decision : February 16 , 2009. Subhash Chander. .... Petitioner. Versus. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Panipat, and another. ...Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Ms. Abha Rathore, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent No. 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 28.03.2007 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, vide which the reference has been answered against the workman holding that although the workman had completed 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination but since he has worked under two different X.E.Ns. i.e. two independent appointing authorities, therefore, the services cannot be taken into consideration for granting the benefit of calculation of 240 days in the last 12 preceding months. Counsel for the petitioner-workman contends that the workman was transferred by the respondent-management from one place to other but he had worked under two X.E.Ns. because of the transfer orders passed by C.W.P. No. 12055 of 2008. the respondent-management itself. This factual assertion as made by the petitioner in para-3 of the writ petition has not been denied by the respondent-management rather the same has been admitted that he was transferred by them. In view of the admission made by the respondent- management and finding as recorded by the Labour Court in para-13 that there were two independent appointing authorities and therefore, the petitioner-workman had worked under two appointing authorities which would not be taken into consideration for calculating the period of 240 days cannot be sustained. A person who is in need of work when transferred from one place to other by an authority under which he is working and that fact having not been denied, there can be no conclusion except that he had worked with the respondent-management for the required period of 240 days in the 12 preceding months and therefore, entitled to protection under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. In view of the above, the findings as recorded by the Labour Court with regard to non completion of 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of termination, are set aside. The termination of services of the workman, therefore, is held to be in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, however, as the appointment of the petitioner-workman was not in accordance with statutory rules and therefore, he does not have right to reinstatement on public post which is to be in accordance with statutory rules and provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India having been violated at the initial stage of appointment of the petitioner-workman, the benefit of reinstatement in service cannot be granted. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-management relies upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of -2- C.W.P. No. 12055 of 2008. 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, wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that the post under the State is required to be filled up in terms of the Recruitment Rules and by inviting applications from all eligible candidates. The petitioner-workman was appointed on daily wages without following the rules and principles of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore, even if the petitioner-workman has completed 240 days of service, the said petitioner-workman is not entitled to be reinstated and also for grant of back wages. The petitioner-workman in the light of the Judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court referred to above, is not entitled to reinstatement against a public post nor he is entitled to any back wages. This Court in case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another, 2008(3) S.C.T. 788, has held that although a daily wager may not be entitled to reinstatement but the petitioner-workman would be entitled to compensation for wrongfully termination of his services. The petitioner- workman has worked as Baildar with respondent-management from 01.08.1993 to October, 1997 which comes to about four years. In the light of the fact that the petitioner-workman has no right for reinstatement in the light of above judgments, however, he is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to settle equities between the parties. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed and the award dated 28.03.2007 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the Labour Court, -3- C.W.P. No. 12055 of 2008. Panipat, is hereby set aside. The petitioner-workman is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 40,000/- in lieu of his reinstatement. The respondent-management is directed to release the said amount i.e. Rs. 40,000/- to the petitioner-workman within a period of two month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The present writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE February 16, 2009. sjks. -4-