IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 12130 of 2008.
Date of Decision : January 15, 2009.
The Executive Engineer, P.W.D.(B/R), Rohtak. ...... Petitioner.
Versus.
Shri Raj Kumar and another. ...... Respondents.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.
Present: Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Advocate,
for the respondent No. 1.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).
In this petition, the challenge is to the award dated 17.03.2008
(Annexure-P-5), passed by the Labour Court vide which the Labour Court
has held that the services of workman has been terminated illegally and
therefore, he was entitled to reinstatement on his previous post with
continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice
i.e. 24.03.2003.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if finding
which has been recorded by the Labour Court is found to be correct, the
petitioner would be entitled to compensation only and not reinstatement in
view of Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State
of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another, 2008(3) S.C.T. 788.
Counsel for the petitioner while referring to the said Judgment states that
although in the present case, there is no violation of Section 25-F and
Section 25-H would not be applicable since there being no violation of
C.W.P. No. 12130 of 2008. -2-
Section 25-F. Since it has been held that Section 25-G has been violated,
the appropriate compensation in accordance with law can only be granted
to the respondent workman and no reinstatement can be granted as there is
no dispute that the appointment of the workman was not made in
accordance with law as held by the Judgment of this Court in case of State
of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh (supra).
Counsel for the respondent has been unable to point out any
fact which would distinguish the applicability of the Judgment referred to
above by counsel for the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the
present case. That being so, as per the finding recorded by the Labour
Court, the respondent workman has worked for seven years and therefore,
it would be appropriate that a compensation of Rs. 70,000/- be granted to
the respondent workman to balance the equity between the parties. The
payment of compensation be disbursed to the respondent workman within
a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
This petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE
January 15,2009.
sjks.