IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.353 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.5.2010 Mohinder Pal. -----Appellant Vs. Presidiing Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant. --- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, holding the appellant workman to be entitled to compensation of Rs.75,000/- for the alleged termination of his services in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act”). 2. The workman was employed as Rickshaw Puller and his services were terminated on the ground of alleged absence from duty from 1.5.1987, after he had rendered 10 years service. The Labour Court upheld the order of termination, holding that the workman failed to respond to the letters of the management and thus, the workman was not entitled to any relief. LPA No.353 of 2010 3. Learned Single Judge, however, held that having regard to the nature of job of the workman and his qualifications, he may not have understood the impact of the alleged notice and in these circumstances, termination of services without inquiry and without complying with Section 25-F of the Act was not valid. However, having regard to the fact that the Corporation, which was a State owned Corporation, had been closed and there was no evidence that the workman was unemployed during the period he was out of service, the workman was entitled to compensation of Rs.75,000/-. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the workman should have been held entitled for reinstatement and backwages. 5. We are unable to accept the submission. It is now well settled that even if there is violation of Section 25-F of the Act, reinstatement and backwages do not follow automatically. If the Corporation itself has been closed down, there could be no question of reinstatement. There is no evidence that the workman was unemployed. Having regard to the nature of job on which the workman was employed, learned Single Judge was justified in observing that he could be presumed to be employed during the period he was out of service, particularly when there is no evidence to the contrary. 2 LPA No.353 of 2010 6. In these circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE May 18, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3