HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, PANIPAT AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the award dated 13.12.2000 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, vide which the reference was answered in favour of the workman holding him entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 2.11.1994.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the workman cannot be put back in service as it is a public appointment and the appointment was not made in accordance with the Statutory Rules governing the service. He further contends that in any case, the appointment of the workman was for a specified assignment and on completion of such assignment, the services of the workman came to an end, the case being covered by the provisions of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which is an exception to the term "retrenchment". It would not be a retrenchment and, therefore, noncompliance of Section 25-F of the Act would not confer any right upon the workman. That being so, the award passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ghaziabad Development Authority and another v. Ashok Kumar and another, 2008 4 SCC 261, Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, 2008 1 SCC 575, M.P. Administration v. Tribhuwan, 2007 9 SCC 748, Uttranchal Forest Development Corpn. v. M.C.Joshi,2007 SCC(L&S) 813, State of M.P. and others v. Lalit Kumar Verma, 2007 1 SCC 575, to contend that the post under the State are required to be filled up in terms of the Recruitment Rules and by inviting applications from all eligible candidates. It is contended that the respondent-workman was engaged on daily wages without following the rules and principles of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, therefore, even if the workman has completed 240 days of service, he is not entitled to be reinstated and also for the grant of back wages.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner further submits that at the most the respondent-workman would be entitled to compensation for the period he has worked with the petitioner but he cannot be reinstated in service in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of District Telecom Manager and others v. Keshab Dev,2008 4 SCT 33 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Ishwar Singh and another, 2008 3 SCT 788. This Court has held that a daily wage employee, even in case there is non-compliance of the Act and there is violation of Sections 2 (oo) (bb), 25-F, 25-G and 25-H, is not entitled to reinstatement on a public post but would be entitled to compensation. In the said judgment also, this Court has granted compensation to the workman.