LPA No. 451 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 451 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: December 15, 2009
Malkiat Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH
Present: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Additional Advocate, General, Punjab.
ORDER
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned
Single Judge, setting aside the order of Labour Court reinstating the
workman with continuity of service and full backwages and instead
directing payment of compensation of Rs. 60,000/-.
2. The appellant was employed as Chowkidar on daily wage basis
in the year 1983 and after about four years of service, his services were
terminated in 1987. Alleging violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the appellant raised
industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication.
The Labour Court upheld the claim and directed reinstatement with
continuity of service and full backwages. The Management-State
challenged the award. After referring judgments in Ghaziabad
Development Authority and another Versus Ashok Kumar and another 2008
LPA No. 451 of 2009 2
(4) S.C.C. 261, Mahboob Deepak versus Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula (2008)
1 S.C. 575, State of M.P. Administration Versus Tribhuwan (2007) 9 S.C.C.
748 and State of M.P. and others versus Lalit Kumar Verma (2007) 1 S.C.C.
575, learned Single Judge held that appointment of the workman to a public
post being without following procedure of law, he could not be reinstated.
It was further held that in view of Jaipur Development Authority vs
Ramsahai and another 2006 (11) SCC 684, provisions of Section 25G and
25H were not applicable. However, it was directed that compensation of Rs.
60,000/- be paid to the workman.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to press for
reinstatement in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred
to above. He, however, submits that compensation should have been
higher, in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan Lalit
Kala Academy vs. Radhey Shayam 2008 (3) SCT 841.
5. We are unable to accept the submission, in view of the order
passed on 4.12.2009 in LPA No. 343 of 2009 (Kuldeep Singh vs Presiding
Officer & others). Considering judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was
observed as under:
“We are unable to accept this submission as the judgment in
Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy (supra) is distinguishable.
Therein, the award had become final and thereafter, the matter
was taken to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in second round of
litigation arising out of proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of
the Act. The said judgment was held to be distinguishable in
order dated 3.12.2009 in L.P.A. No. 566 of 2009 Balwinder
LPA No. 451 of 2009 3Singh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others.
6. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere
with the view taken by learned Single Judge.
7. The appeal is dismissed.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
December 15, 2009 (GURDEV SINGH )
prem JUDGE