IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 3804 of 2008. Date of Decision : April 22, 2009. Dhakeli. ....... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Gurgaon, and others. ....... Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 13.12.2007 (Annexre-P-4), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Gurgaon, vide which although finding has been recorded that the workman had completed 240 days but no relief has been granted relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and judgment of this Court and. Counsel for the petitioner contends that having regard to the provisions as contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with, the workman was entitled to reinstatement. He further contends that even provisions as contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with and the same is C.W.P. No. 3804 of 2008. apparent from the demand notice and reply there to claim statement, copy whereof has been placed as Annexure-P-2. On this basis, he contends that the workman was entitled to reinstatement in service. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents contends that although it is an admitted position that the workman had completed 240 days with the respondents in the 12 preceding months but still in the light of the judgments passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and by this Court, reliance whereof has been made by the Labour Court, the workman would not be entitled to reinstatement or any compensation. He contends that in any case, reinstatement could not have been granted as the appointment of the workman was not in consonance with statutory rules governing the service and not in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He relies 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, 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 workman was engaged on daily wages without following the rules and principles of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore, even if the workman has completed 240 days of service, the said workman is not entitled to be reinstated and also for grant of back wages. The petitioner-workman in the light of the -2- C.W.P. No. 3804 of 2008. Judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court referred to above, is not entitled to reinstatement against a public post nor is he entitled to any back wages. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The undisputed position which comes out from the perusal of the award passed by the Labour Court is that the workman had indeed completed 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of her termination. The claim statement and response thereto further indicates that no compensation was granted to the workman while terminating her services, leading to the violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Since, there is violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the workman would be entitled to compensation although reinstatement cannot be granted to the workman 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 Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another, 2008(3) S.C.T. 788. As per the pleadings, it appears that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have also not been complied with, however, even if the provisions of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, have not been complied, then also reinstatement cannot be granted to the workman as the basic requirement i.e. appointment as per the statutory rules with regard to appointment to the public post have not been complied with. It is not in dispute that the workman was not appointed in consonance with the statutory rules, governing the service nor was principles as envisaged under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India complied with while making appointment to the said post. That being the position in -3- C.W.P. No. 3804 of 2008. law, only the benefit that the workman could be granted is the benefit of compensation in the light of the judgment in the case of Telecom District Manager and others Versus Kesheb Deb (supra), and Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another (supra). Since the workman had worked with the respondents for about 2 years which factual position is not in dispute, the workman is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. In the light of the judgments referred to above in the case of Telecom District Manager and others Versus Kesheb Deb (supra), and Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another (supra), the present writ petition is allowed to the limited extent that the workman would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. Direction is issued to the respondents No. 2 to 4 to make the payment of compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the workman within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE April 22, 2009. sjks. Whether referred to the Reporter – Yes/No. -4-