IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.3048 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 26.05.2009 The Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani ....Petitioner(s) vs. Gopal and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Kartar Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the petitioner. Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for respondent No.1. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the award dated 23.1.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman holding him entitled to reinstatement on his previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 11.09.2000 (Annexure P-2). Counsel for the petitioner contends that due to non-production of records, an adverse inference has been drawn against the Management and a finding to the effect that the workman has completed more than 240 days in the 12 preceding months, has been given. He submits that even if the findings as recorded by the Labour Court are taken to be correct, then also in view of the fact that he does not hold a regular post, as admittedly he being a daily wager, he is not entitled to reinstatement in service in view of the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ghaziabad Development Authority and another vs. Ashok Kumar and C.W.P.No.3048 of 2009 -2- another, 2008 (4) SCC 261, Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, (2008) 1 SCC 575, M.P. Administration vs. Tribhuwan, (2007) 9 SCC 748, Uttranchal Forest Development Corpn. vs. M.C.Joshi, (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 813, State of M.P. and others vs. Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007) SCC 575. He, therefore, contends that the appointment of the workman was de hors the statutory rules governing the service and the Scheme as envisaged under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The award impugned herein cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-workman submits that the Labour Court has rightly, on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, proceeded to decide the reference. It is an admitted position that the services of the workman were terminated without following the provisions as contained under the Act and, therefore, the Labour Court had rightly ordered her reinstatement. He, on this basis, contends that the impugned award deserves to be upheld. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. As per the position which has emerged after going through the impugned award, the workman had worked with the Management from July, 1989 till November, 1998 which comes to nine and half years with the Management. It is also an admitted position that the termination of his services was not in consonance with the Act as the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act have been violated. In the light of the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner and in view of the admitted fact that the appointment of the respondent-workman was not as per the statutory rules governing the C.W.P.No.3048 of 2009 -3- service nor was it against a regular post after complying with the procedure and process of selection for appointment on regular posts as mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the workman cannot be reinstated in service. The impugned award dated 23.01.2008 (Annexure P-1), cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. However, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of District Telecom Manager and others vs. Keshab Dev, 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, since the services of the workman have been terminated in violation of the provisions as contained under the Act, to balance the equities between the parties, it would be just and appropriate that the workman be held entitled to compensation for the period of work he had put in with the Management. Respondent No.2-workman has worked with the petitioner- Management from July 1989 till November, 1998 i.e. for a period of nine and half years and, therefore, is held entitled to compensation of Rs.95,000/-. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed; the impugned award dated 23.01.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, is hereby set aside, however, the workman is held entitled to compensation of Rs.95,000/-. A direction is issued to the petitioners to release the amount of compensation to the respondent-workman within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. May 26, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE