CWP No. 7887 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 7887 of 2009 Date of decision: 27.04.2010 Budhan son of Sh. Prittam Singh ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III, Faridabad and another ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned Award dated 01.12.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Labour Court-III, Faridabad cannot be sustained as despite having confirmed that the workman had completed more than 240 days in service in 12 preceding months' from the date of his termination, he has not been reinstated in service. He, however, contends that even if the appointment of the petitioner was dehors the statutory Rules governing the service but still since there was violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the petitioner would be entitled to compensation as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Telecom District Manager and others vs. Keshab Dev, 2008 (4) SCT 33 and a Division CWP No. 7887 of 2009 2 Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana through Executive Engineer vs. Ishwar Singh and others, 2008 (3) SCT 788. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 2 contends that the appointment of the petitioner was on contract basis, therefore, would be covered by the provisions of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, he could not dispute the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that two judgments, as referred to above, would entitle the petitioner a compensation as the termination of the petitioner was found to be in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Having heard the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that since the petitioner had worked with respondent No. 2 from 01.07.1996 to July, 1997, the petitioner is held entitled to a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to balance the equities between the parties as his termination is in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. As his appointment was dehors the statutory Rules, no further benefit can be granted to the petitioner. The compensation, as assessed, is in accordance with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Telecom District Manager and others (supra) and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana through Executive Engineer (supra). The compensation, as assessed by this Court, be released to the petitioner within a period of two months' from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The present petition is allowed to the extent that the impugned Award shall stand modified to the extent that the workman is held entitled to the compensation of Rs. 15,000/- ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE April 27, 2010 pj