IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.166 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.2.2011 Basic Seed Farm. -----Appellant. Vs. Krishan Lal & another. -----Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge awarding compensation of `40,000/-. 2. The appellant is running a project under the Central Silk Board, which is a Government organization. The project is a World Bank aided project. The respondent-workman was engaged temporarily on 16.9.1995. On termination of his services, he raised industrial dispute alleging wrongful termination in violation of statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The dispute was referred for adjudication. The appellant contested the claim of the workman on the plea that the workman had not completed 240 days. The Labour Court vide award dated 12.9.2006, decided the issue in favour of the LPA No.166 of 2011 workman. It was held that termination of his services was in violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act. Principle of ‘last come first go’ was not followed. Accordingly, it was held that the workman was entitled to reinstatement with 25% of the backwages. 3. Learned Single Judge considered the writ petition of the appellant-Board. Though the finding of the labour Court on the issue of termination being in violation of statutory provisions was upheld, on the question of relief, it was held that appointment of the workman being to a public post, without following due procedure as per Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the workman could not be reinstated and could instead be granted compensation. Reliance was placed on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority and Another v. Ashok Kumar and another 2008(4) SCC 261, Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula (2008) 1 SC 575, M.P. Administration v. Tribhuwan (2007) 9 SCC 748 and State of M.P. and others v. Lalit Kumar Verma (2007) 1 SCC 575. Accordingly, the workman was awarded compensation of `40,000/- having regard to the fact that he had worked for about four years. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appointment of the workman was only for 59 days and not for more than 240 days, as held by the Labour Court as well as by 2 LPA No.166 of 2011 learned Single Judge. Apart from the fact that this finding is a finding of fact, the workman has only been awarded compensation of `40,000/-, which cannot be held to be excessive. 6. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE February 02, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3