IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.768 of 2004 Date of Decision:- 13.02.2009 The Superintending Engineer, Amritsar Circle UBDC, Amritsar and another ....Petitioner(s) vs. Gurdip Singh and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Vijay Kumar Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the petitioners. Mr.R.S.Manhas, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 10.1.2003 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur vide which the reference was answered in favour of the workman holding him entitled to reinstatement in service on the ground that the provisions of Sections 25-F as well as Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have been violated by the respondents. Counsel for the petitioners contends that as per the allegations of the workman, his services were terminated on 1.10.1996 whereas the reference was made on 29.2.2000 and, thus, there is a delay of more than three years in making such reference from the date of his termination. He contends that on this aspect itself, the reference could not have been made to the Labour Court as no dispute would have survived. He contends that the respondent-workman has failed to prove that he has worked for more C.W.P.No.768 of 2004 -2- than 240 days preceding to his termination and that adverse inference has been wrongly drawn against the petitioners for non-production of the records. As regards the factual aspect with regard to the finding qua non- compliance of provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H, counsel for the petitioners is unable to rebut the same. He relies upon the judgments of this Court in the case of General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Nawan Shehar vs. Sarsander Kumar, 1997 (2) SCT 530 and Punjab National Bank vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court- II, Chandigarh and another, 2008 (1) SLR 416. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the demand notice had been preferred after a delay of more than three years, the same cannot be treated as a ground in itself for not granting the benefit to the workman when it stands proved that the provisions of the Act have not been complied with. It is for the Appropriate Government to see, on a demand notice having been sent, as to whether there exists a dispute or not. Such decision having been taken by the Appropriate Government and there being nothing on the record which would suggest otherwise than that there actually existed an industrial dispute, the contention as raised by the counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-workman contends that even if the workman has not completed 240 days and the arguments as addressed by learned counsel for the petitioners are accepted then also in view of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act, the termination of the workman would be in violation of the Act and, therefore, he would be C.W.P.No.768 of 2004 -3- entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the appointment of the workman was on a public post which was not made in accordance with the Statutory Rules governing his service, since the same was, at the very out set, not in accordance with law the reinstatement of the workman cannot be ordered in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaipur Development Authority vs. Ramsahai and another, (2006) 11 SCC 684 and by this Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ishwar Singh and another, 2008(3) S.C.T. 788. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, I am of the considered view that the workman cannot be ordered to be reinstated in service. The award dated 10.1.2003 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, is hereby set aside to the extent it orders reinstatement of the workman. The workman who had worked with the petitioners for six years, is held entitled to compensation of Rs.60,000/- to settle the equity between the parties. A direction is issued to the petitioners to make payment of the said compensation to the workman within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. February 13, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No