L.P.A.No. 1099 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A.No. 1099 of 2010 Date of Decision:-6.9.2010. Wild Life Conservation Warden Appellant . VERSUS Meer Lal and another Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR. HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI. Present: Ms. Mamta Singhal Talwar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana,for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? RITU BAHRI,J. This Letters Patent Appeal by unsuccessful appellant, has been filed against the judgment dated 05.11.2009 passed by Learned Single Judge. A short question of law which arises for determination is- “whether the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service can be given where no plea relating to the employment being illegal or in contravention of any recruitment rule has been taken by the Management?” L.P.A.No. 1099 of 2010 2 In the present case, the workman was appointed as Daily Wager in November, 1994. The services of the workman were terminated w.e.f. 18.7.1997. The workman challenged the same before the Labour Court on 2.4.2002. The Labour Court awarded Rs. 20,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. While disposing of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition with a direction to reinstate the workman. The relief of reinstatement has been given on the ground that the management has raised no plea relating to the employment, being illegal or in contravention of any recruitment rule. Learned Single Judge has placed reliance on Surendra Kumar Verma etc. Vs. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and another AIR 1981 SC 422 Ms. Mamta Singhal Talwar,Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, has argued that the learned Single Judge did not take into consideration the fact that the workman was out of service for more than 12 years. The benefit of 50% back wages has been given to the workman despite the fact that he did not plead before the Court that he was not gainfully employed. We have gone through the facts of the above L.P.A.No. 1099 of 2010 3 case and are of the view that the judgment of the learned Single Judge requires no interference. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, JT 2010 (1) SC 598, has held that even if the plea has been raised by the employer that the appointment of the workman was contrary to provisions of a statute or it was back door entry, then the approach of the Courts must be compatible. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishan Singh Vs. Executive Engineer, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Rohtak, 2010(2) RSJ, 692 and Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1, Panipat (Haryana), JT 2010(4) SC 229. The justice should not be denied to the workman by entertaining the specious and untenable grounds put forward by the employer- public or private. In view of the above, we find no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR ) (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE JUDGE 6.9.2010 Anoop L.P.A.No. 1099 of 2010 4