C.W.P. No. 2731 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 2731 of 1996 Decided on : 17-04-2009 Haryana Warehousing Corporation Ltd. ....Petitioner VERSUS Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labourt Court, Panipat and another. ....Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. G.S. Anand, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashwani Kumar Bawa, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J (Oral). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 3.02.1995 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Panipat, vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman, holding him entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the appointment of the workman was initially for a period of three months and on expiry of the said term each time the workman was granted a fresh contract for a specified period. He contends that as the appointment of the workman was purely on contract basis, therefore, provisions of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') would C.W.P. No. 2731 of 1996 -2- not come in as his termination cannot be termed to be retrenchment. He contends that it would be covered by Clause (bb) of Section 2 (oo) of the Act. He contends that in this view of the matter and the factual position with regard to the contractual fixed term appointment having been given to the workman, the impugned Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, cannot be sustained. On the other hand counsel for respondent No.2-workman contends that it is an admitted position that the workman has completed 240 days in the 12 preceding months before his date of termination with the petitioner. Since Section 25-F of the Act has not been complied with, therefore, the impugned Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court is in accordance with law and deserves to be sustained. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. A perusal of the same would show that although the appointment of the workman was for a fixed term wherein each time the period was specified, but nevertheless the workman has worked for a period of about 2 years and 3 months with notional breaks only. It is also not in dispute that the workman had indeed completed 240 days in the 12 preceding months prior to his date of termination. The findings, therefore, recorded by the Labour Court with regard to the non-compliance of Section 25-F may, however, not be interfered with. However, counsel for the petitioner contends that since the initial appointment of the workman was not in accordance with the statutory rules governing the service. His appointment was purely on ad C.W.P. No. 2731 of 1996 -3- hoc basis and therefore, reinstatement of the workman on the post, which is in the nature of a public post, cannot be ordered. He has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in cases reported as Ghaziabad Development Authority & another Vs. Ashok Kumar & another, 2008 (4) SCC 261, Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat , Gajraula , (2008) 1 SCC 575, M.P. Administration Vs. Tribhuwan, (2007) 9 SCC 748, Utrranchal Forest Development Corpn. Vs. M.C. Joshi, (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 813, State of M.P. And others Vs. Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007) 1 SCC 575, to contend that the appointment of the workman being not in consonance with the statutory rules and not in accordance with the scheme as envisaged under the Constitution and Articles 14 and 16 thereof, reinstatement of the workman cannot be made. On the other hand counsel for respondent No.2 contends that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the workman may not be entitled to reinstatement, however, he would be entitled to compensation in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Telecom District Manager and others Vs. Kesheb Deb, 2008 (4) S.C.T. 33 and a Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ishwar Singh and another, 2008(3) S.C.T. 788. In view of the factual position as has been stated above and in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reliance whereupon has been made by the counsel for the petitioner, the impugned Award dated 3.02.1995 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Industrial Tribunal- C.W.P. No. 2731 of 1996 -4- cum-Labour Court, Panipat, is hereby set aside. However, keeping in view the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Telecom District Manager (supra) and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ishwar Singh (supra), the workman is held entitled to compensation. Since the workman has worked for 2 years and 3 months with the Management, he is held entitled to compensation to the amount of Rs.20,000/-. This would be over and above the amount, he has been granted as per the provisions contained in Section 17-B of the Act. The Management-petitioner is directed to release the amount of compensation of Rs.20,000/- as assessed to the respondent No.2-workman within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms. 17th April, 2009. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) Monika JUDGE