IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 486 of 2011 Date of decision: 23.3.2011. Nepal Singh …..Appellant vs. Divisional Forest Officer Bhiwani and another …..Respondents CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: - Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J CM No. 1302 of 2011 Exemption is allowed as prayed for. CM No. 1303 of 2011 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 332 days in filing the appeal is condoned. LPA No. 486 of 2011 Appellant is aggrieved against an order passed by learned Single Judge on 10.2.2010, whereby the Award rendered by the learned Labour Court was modified and the appellant was granted compensation of Rs. 95,000/-. LPA No. 486 of 2011 Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Management has not pleaded before the Labour Court that the appointment of the appellant was not in violations of the Rules and thus, the plea that the appointment to the public post is against the principles set down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) reported as 2006(4) SCC 1, State of Karnakta vs. Uma Devi is not applicable. We do not find any merit in the said argument. It is pleaded by the Management before learned Labour Court that the workman has worked as daily wage labourer and the work of the Haryana Forest Department is seasonal in nature. It is further stated that the appointment of the employee is done only against the regular post after going through selection procedure and after getting sufficient numbers of candidates from the employment exchange concern. It is thus apparent that the Management has taken plea the appellant was not appointed on the regular post after complying with the requirements of filling up of the public post. In addition thereto, we find that the services of the workman as per the case pleaded were terminated in the year 1995 but the appellant has raised the dispute after four years in the year 1999. 2 LPA No. 486 of 2011 In view of the said fact, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by learned Labour Court which may warrant interference in appeal. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 23.3. 2011 (ARVIND KUMAR) preeti JUDGE 3