LPA No. 534 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 534 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: December 2, 2009
Anil Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority and another ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH
Present: Mr. A.K. Goyat, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate, for
respondent No.1.
ORDER
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned
Single Judge, setting aside the award of the Labour Court reinstating the
appellant with full backwages and instead directing to pay compensation of
Rs. 20,000/- to the appellant.
2. The appellant was employed on daily wage basis from 1.6.1995
to 31.7.1996, after which his services were discontinued. He raised
industrial dispute, alleging violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which was referred
to the Labour Court for adjudication.
3. The Labour Court held that since there was violation of Section
25-F of the Act, the workman was entitled to reinstatement with backwages.
The respondent–management filed writ petition in this Court which has
LPA No. 534 of 2009 2
been allowed by learned Single Judge, relying on Division Bench of this
Court in State of Haryana versus Ishwar Singh and another 2008 (3) S.C.T.
788.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the workman
was entitled to reinstatement with backwages, as rightly held by the Labour
Court. He placed reliance on judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Vikramaditya Pandey v. Industrial Tribunal and another AIR 2001 Supreme
Court 672, Manager, R.B.I., Bangalore versus S.Mani and others A.I.R.
2005 Supreme Court 2179, State of Punjab & Ors versus Des Bandhu 2007
(9) S.C. C. 39 and Div. Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus A.
Sankaralingam 2008 (10) S.C.C. 698 and judgment of this Court in CWP
6673 of 2006 (Range Forest Officer, Rewari and another versus Sh.
Ram Chander and another) decided on 2.9.2009.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-
management relied on judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Telecom
District Manager and other versus Keshab Deb 2008 (8) S.C.C. 402 and
Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Om Pal AIR 2008 Supreme Court
475 and judgment of this Court in Ishwar Singh (supra).
7. Admittedly, appointment of the appellant was on daily wage
basis on a public post and his services were discontinued in terms of
contract of employment. Period of his service was about one year. In such
circumstances, it could not be held that the workman was entitled to
reinstatement as held by this Court in Ishwar Singh (supra), following
judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar
Panchayat, Gajraula, 2008 SCC 575 (para 5). At best the workman could
LPA No. 534 of 2009 3
get compensation. Learned Single Judge has accordingly awarded
compensation, as aforesaid.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to
distinguish the judgment relied upon by learned Single Judge. Judgments
relied upon by the appellant are distinguishable as therein effect of
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Secretary, State of Karnataka V.
Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1 has not been considered, except in Range Forest
Officer (supra) which is a judgment of learned Single Judge. The said
judgment is contrary to law laid down in Ishwar Singh (supra) which is a
judgment by a Division Bench. Judgments relied upon by learned counsel
for the respondent support the view taken in the impugned judgment. We,
thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned
Single Judge.
10. The appeal is dismissed.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
December 2, 2009 (GURDEV SINGH )
prem JUDGE