IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 17748 of 2007.
Date of Decision : February 19, 2009.
Municipal Council, Panchkula . .... Petitioner.
Versus.
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Ambala, and others. ...Respondents.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.
Present: Mr. Sanjay S. Chauhan, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Jai Shree Thakur, Advocate,
for the respondent No. 2.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).
In the present case, the challenge is to the award dated
09.08.2007 (Anneuxre-P-5), vide which the reference has been answered in
favour of the workman holding him entitled to reinstatement with full back
wages and continuity in service.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that if the findings which
have been recorded by the Labour Court, is taken into consideration to be
correct, still the workman cannot be put back in service for the reason (i) that
he does not fulfill statutory requirement for being appointed as a driver and
(ii) that a public post which requires to be fulfilled in accordance with
C.W.P. No. 17748 of 2007. -2-
statutory rules. The statutory rules having not been complied by making
appointment of respondent-workman in service, Articles 14 and 16 stand
violated. That being the position, the workman at the most can be
compensated for the wrongful termination as has been held by the Labour
Court but cannot be reinstated in service.
In the cases of Ghaziabad Development Authority and another
Versus Ashok Kumar and another, 2008(4) S.C.C. 261, Mahboob Deepak
Versus Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, (2008) 1 S.C.C. 575, 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, Hon’ble the
Supreme Court has held that the post under the State is required to be filled
up in terms of the Recruitment Rules and by inviting applications from all
eligible candidates. The workman-respondent was engaged on daily wages
without following the rules and principles of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India, therefore, even if the workman-respondent has
completed 240 days of service, the said workman-respondent is not entitled
to be reinstated and also for grant of back wages. The workman-respondent
in the light of the Judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court referred to
above, is not entitled to reinstatement against a public post nor he is entitled
to any back wages.
This Court in case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh
and another, 2008(3) S.C.T. 788, has held that although a daily wager may
not be entitled to reinstatement but the workman-respondent would be
entitled to compensation for wrongful termination of his services. The
workman-respondent has worked with management from December, 2000 to
November, 2001, as per the award. In the light of the fact that the workman-
C.W.P. No. 17748 of 2007. -3-
respondent has no right for reinstatement in the light of above judgments,
however, he is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to settle
equities between the parties.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed and
the award dated 09.08.2007 (Annexure-P-5), passed by the Labour Court,
Ambala, is hereby set aside. The workman-respondent is held entitled to
compensation of Rs. 10,000/- in lieu of his reinstatement.
The management-petitioner is directed to release the said
amount i.e. Rs. 10,000/- to the workman-respondent within a period of two
month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The present writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE
February 19, 2009.
sjks.