Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2180 (PNJ)

Malkiat Singh v. State Of Punjab

2009-12-15

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, GURDEV SINGH

body2009
Judgment 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge, setting aside the order of Labour Court reinstating the workman with continuity of service and full backwages and instead directing payment of compensation of Rs. 60,000/-. 2. The appellant was employed as Chowkidar on daily wage basis in the year 1983 and after about four years of service, his services were terminated in 1987. Alleging violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the appellant raised industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court upheld the claim and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages. The Management - State challenged the award. After referring judgments in Ghaziabad Development Authority and another v. Ashoh Kumar and another 2008 (4) S. C. C. 261, Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula 2008(1) S.C.T. 310:2008(1) R.A.J. 295: (2008) 1 S.C. 575, State of M.P. Administration v. Tribhuwan 2007(2) S.C.T. 738: (2007) 9S.C.C. 748 and State of M.P. and others v. Lalit Kumar Verma 2007(1) S.C.T. 620 : (2007) I S.C.C. 575, learned Single Judge held that appointment of the workman to a public post being without following procedure of law, he could not be reinstated. It was further held that in view of Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai and another 2006(4) S.C. T. 772 : 2006 (11) SCC 684, provisions of Section 25G and 25H were not applicable. However, it was directed that compensation of Rs. 60,000/- be paid to the workman. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to press for reinstatement in view of law laid down by Honble Supreme Court, referred to above. He, however, submits that compensation should have been higher, in view of judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy v. Radhey Shayam 2008 (3) SCT 841. 5. We are unable to accept the submission, in view of the order passed on 2010(1) S.C.T. 400 : 4.12.2009 in LPA No. 343 of 2009 (Kuldeep Singh v. Presiding Officer & others). Considering judgment of Honble Supreme Court, it was observed as under: "We are unable to accept this submission as the judgment in Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy (supra) is distinguishable. Considering judgment of Honble Supreme Court, it was observed as under: "We are unable to accept this submission as the judgment in Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy (supra) is distinguishable. Therein, the award had become final and thereafter, the matter was taken to the Honble Supreme Court in second round of litigation arising out of proceedings under Section 33 - C (2) of the Act. The said judgment was held to be distinguishable in order dated 3.12.2009 in L.P.A. No. 566 of 2009 Balwinder Singh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & others." 6. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is dismissed.