IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.218 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.12.2009 Shri Kanwar Pal. -----Appellant Vs. State of Haryana & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Tribhuvan Dahiya, Advocate for the appellant. Mrs. Sushma Chopra, Addl.A.G., Haryana for respondents. --- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment of learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition of the State- management against reinstatement of the appellant-workman with continuity of service and full backwages. 2. The workman was engaged on purely daily wage/ muster roll basis w.e.f. 1.11.1995 as Gardener-cum-Chowkidar in PWD Public Health Division of the State of Haryana. His services were terminated on 31.3.1997. He raised an industrial dispute, alleging violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. LPA No.218 of 2009 The Labour Court vide award dated 29.4.2003, upheld the claim of the workman. Aggrieved thereby, the State preferred writ petition in this Court and relied upon judgments of 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, to submit that the appointment to a public post having been made without following rules and regulations, there could be no reinstatement. This plea was upheld and impugned award was set aside. It was, however, made clear that if services of the workman were still required, setting aside of the award would not affect the employment of the workman and benefit already granted to the workman will not be withdrawn. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in identical circumstances, award was upheld by this Court vide judgment dated 18.4.2006 in CWP No.5787 of 2006 State of Haryana v. Sahi Ram & another against which order, SLP was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 3.8.2009 being SLP (Civil) No.19838/2006 Executive Engineer, PWD (PH) & Ors. v. Sahi Ram. 2 LPA No.218 of 2009 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the judgment of learned Single Judge is based on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which still hold the field and mere dismissal of SLP does not change the legal position laid down in the judgments referred to by learned Single Judge mentioned above. 6. We had granted adjournment to learned counsel for the appellant on 31.3.2009 to distinguish the judgments relied upon by learned Single Judge or cite any other judgment. He has not been able to distinguish the same or cite any judgment to the contrary. 7. In view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred to above, the workman could not be reinstated into service, as held by learned Single Judge. 8. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 9. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 22, 2009 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3