- (1.) Gurcharan Singh (workman) has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment dated March 10, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (C.W.P. No.14861 of 2009) filed by the appellant challenging the part of the award dated 3.2.2009 made by the Labour Court declining his reinstatement and awarding Rs. 10,000/- as compensation, has been dismissed.
(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the impugned order as well as the award made by the Labour Court, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
(3.) In the present case, the services of the appellant were terminated in the year 1987, whereas he served the demand notice raising the industrial dispute in the year 1998. Though the Labour Court found the termination illegal, yet keeping in view the fact that the services of workman were terminated 21 years back and the fact that the appellant was engaged on daily wages at D.C. rates as well as other facts of the case, declined to reinstate the workman and in lieu of that awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/-, while observing as under:- "Non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 although may lead to the grant of relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service in favour of the retrenched workman, the same would not mean that such relief is to be granted automatically or as a matter of course as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mamni, 2006 2 LLJ 744 . In the said case Hon'ble Supreme Court modified the impugned Award by directing that the workman shall be compensated by payment of Rs.25,000/- instead of order of reinstatement with back wages. The respondent Department is governed by rules and regulations of Punjab government. Gurcharan Singh was not the regular employee of the respondent department. Proper procedure was not followed while giving him employment. Such type of ad-hoc/temporary appointments being contrary to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution are illegal as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi and others, 2006 2 LLJ 722. Even, otherwise, in the instant case the services of the workman were terminated on 1/1/1987 and period of 21 years has already lapsed. In the light of the above discussion it is held that workman Gurcharan Singh is not entitled to relief of reinstatement with back wages. Taking into consideration the fact that the services of the workman Gurcharan Singh were terminated illegally by the respondent management and that this reference remained pending for about 10 years, interests of justice shall be sub-served if compensation worth Rs.10000/- is directed to be paid to the workman by the respondent Department. Accordingly, this issue is disposed of while holding that workman Gurcharan Singh is entitled to get compensation worth Rs.10000/- from the respondent Department in place of order of reinstatement with full back wages.";