IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1435 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.12.2009 Smt. Upma Saini. -----Appellant Vs. State of Punjab & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Sarabjeet Khaira, Advocate for the appellant. --- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, setting aside the award of reinstatement in favour of the appellant and directing payment of Rs.25,000/- as compensation. 2. The appellant was appointed as Time Clerk on temporary basis on a project in Ranjit Sagar Dam on work charged basis on 1.7.1988. His appointment letter, Annexure P- 1, specifically stated that the post was temporary and terminable without any notice. He worked upto June, 1989. He raised an industrial dispute, by serving a Demand Notice dated 24.5.1993, Annexure P-3, alleging violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial LPA No.1435 of 2009 Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act”). The dispute was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. The claim of the workman was opposed on behalf of the respondent State of Punjab, raising objection that there was delay of four years in raising the dispute. It was also stated that the workman had not completed 240 days in service in the calendar year in question. 3. The Labour Court upheld the claim of the workman, holding that burden of proof being on the employer to show the period of service, in absence of record being produced, violation of Section 25-F of the Act was established. Objection that the dispute was stale, having been raised after 4 years after the order of termination, was rejected. 4. The management filed writ petition in this Court, which has been allowed by learned Single Judge. It was held that the workman was employed on a purely work-charge temporary basis and could not continue beyond the project. His appointment was without any sanction from the Chief Engineer and though direction to disengage his services was issued, the workman continued to work. In such a situation, the workman was not entitled to reinstatement. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and order of reinstatement was set aside, but compensation of Rs.25,000/- was ordered to be paid. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 2 LPA No.1435 of 2009 6. Contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the Labour Court rightly held that termination of services of the appellant was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act and since it was not denied that persons junior to the appellant were retained in service, there was violation of Section 25-G & 25-H of the Act also. He further submitted that pursuant to order of reinstatement, the workman was allowed to join and he is still continuing in service. In such a situation, learned Single Judge was not justified in quashing the impugned award. 7. We are unable to accept the submissions. 8. The workman was appointed in work-charged establishment on purely temporary basis. The appointment being to a public post without following due procedure of law, order of reinstatement could not be justified even if he had worked for 240 days. Reference may be made to law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaipur Development Authoirty v. Ramsahai and another 2006(11) SCC 1, M.P. and others v. Lalit Kumar Verma 2007 (1) SCC 575, Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula 2008(1) SCC 575 and Ghaziabad Development Authority and another v. Ashok Kumar and another 2008(4) SCC 261. Learned Single Judge has observed in para 5 of the impugned order that the workman did not offer his services in pursuance of award. Even if the workman did join, as is stated by learned counsel for the appellant, the same would not create any right. Once an award is set aside, right of the 3 LPA No.1435 of 2009 workman under the award did not survive. It is, however, made clear that if the workman has been paid any wages for the period he has worked, the same will not be disturbed. 9. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 10. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 22, 2009 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 4