C.W.P No. 5959 of 1992 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 5959 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision : April 19, 2011 The Punjab State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation ...... Petitioner v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda and another ...... Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S.Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This writ petition has been filed against the Award dated 17.12.1991. Brief facts are that respondent No.2-workman worked as daily wage Chowkidar w.e.f 19.11.1987 to 27.3.1989. His stand was that he along with one Gurdeep Singh had been similarly employed and their services were similarly terminated. The stand of the petitioner was that they C.W.P No. 5959 of 1992 (O&M) ::2:: had abandoned the services of respondent No.2 as well as Gurdeep Singh. The learned Labour Court, in respect of one of the two persons, held that Gurdeep Singh had voluntarily left the job but respondent No.2 was illegally removed from service. When the writ petition came up for motion hearing, the implementation of the Award was stayed subject to the provisions of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, now for the last two decades, respondent No.2 has been granted the benefit of payment without work. In my opinion, the finding of the Labour Court is completely perverse. It is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed on daily wages without following any procedure of law. In the circumstances, it would not be in the interest of justice to perpetuate the initial illegality. It cannot, however, be gainsaid that the services of respondent No.2 have not been terminated in accordance with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the circumstances, in my opinion it would be in the interest of justice to treat the amount paid under Section 17B of the Act as compensation to respondent No.2 for his wrongful termination. This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) April 19, 2011. JUDGE `kk'