STATE OF HARYANA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the award dated 10.8.2004 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon vide which the reference was answered in favour of the workman holding him entitled to continuity of service and full back wages.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that even if the evidence as recorded by the Labour Court is taken to be correct, then also, the workman would not be entitled to reinstatement in view of the fact that his initial appointment was not in accordance with the Statutory Rules and in any case, he was a daily wager and, thus, did not have any right to hold a public post. He further contends that the post on which the workman has been reinstated, being a public post, could not have been filled up without complying with the Statutory Rules in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 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 2 SCC(L&S) 813, State of M.P. and others v. Lalit Kumar Verma,2007 SCC 575, to contend that the posts 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 then also, he is not entitled to be reinstated and also for the grant of back wages.

(3.) Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai and another, 2006 11 SCC 684.