JASBIR SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 6.10.2009, dismissing CWP No. 15281 of 2009, filed by the appellant, assailing an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court at Chandigarh.
(2.) AS per facts on record, the respondent -workman raised a dispute stating that she continued to work with the appellant -Nigam from 1.1.1990 to 7.6.2002 when her services were terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act'). Before the Labour Court and also before the learned Single Judge, it was stated by the appellant that the respondent was working against some un -sanctioned post for about one/one and a half hours in a day. It was further stated that the office, in which she was working, was shifted to some other place. On account of that her services were no more required. The Industrial Tribunal, on perusal of evidence, came to a conclusion that the respondent -workman was employed with the appellant and her services were terminated without complying the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, as she had completed 240 days during the relevant period.
(3.) THE appellant came in writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 6.10.2009. It was observed as under : - "As regards the contention that the workman had not been engaged by the management at all and she was not a workman, the Labour Court adverted to the admission of the management -witness that the workman had been in continuous employment for more than 12 years. Evidently it was a case where the management had not followed the statutory mandate under Section 25 -F and addressing the issue whether it would be lawful to grant reinstatement or to pay compensation. The Labour Court found that there was no plea made that the work was not available and it was also found the termination being illegal, the workman was entitled to be reinstated. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the management assails the award of the Labour Court on the ground that the appointment was not regular and there was no sanctioned post. His further contention is that the award conflicts with several decisions of this Court and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned counsel refers to a decision in Superintending Engineer, PWD (B&R), Bhiwani Versus Surender and another -2009(3) SLR 206, when a Hon'ble Bench of this Court held that even if there was a violation under Section 25 -F, the workman shall not always be entitled to reinstatement if public employment was involved. Yet another ruling of this Court was a Divisional Forest Officer, Bhiwani Versus Rajbir -2009(3) SLR 366, where the Hon'ble Bench dealt with the case of a daily wager and the Court found in that case that the employment had been made not in consonance with the recruitment rules and found the compensation was appropriate relief. The learned counsel also referred to two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaipur Development Authority Versus Ramsahai and another -(2006) 11 SCC 684, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with in para 28 a situation of violation of Sections 25 -G and 25 -H of the Industrial Disputes Act. We have no such complaint in this case. Yet another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was State of Rajasthan and another Versus Ghyan Chand -(2006) 7 Supreme Court Cases 755 . I have dealt with the above decisions in a judgment in CWP No.6673 of 2006, decided on 02.09.2009 titled as 'Range Forest Officer, Rewari and another Versus Shri Ram Chander and another'. There is no law that a daily wager cannot be reinstated. There is again no law that in public employment wherever there was a violation of Section 25 -F, it should always result only in compensation and no reinstatement is possible. It is a clear misreading of the position of law and none of the decisions which have been referred to by the learned counsel have anywhere stated that relief of reinstatement is impermissible for a daily wager in public appointment. There are two Bench decisions of this Court that have held, by citing Section 25 -J of the Industrial Disputes Act that the provision override any other law or contract to the contrary and directed reinstatement in similar circumstances, vide Dhani Ram Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Faridabad -2007(1) SCT 59, and Senior Medical Officer -in -Charge, PHC Versus Sukhwinder SinghCivil 2007(2) SCT 112. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld relief of reinstatement to a part time Sweeper -cum - Water carrier in New India Assurance Company Limited Versus A. Sankaralingam -(2008) 10 SCC 698. There is no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly. No costs." ;