The court's decision was primarily based on the interpretation and application of the provisions of Section 25-F and Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding the termination of services and entitlement to reinstatement with back-wages.

Augustine George Masih, J.

1. In the present writ petition, the Award dated 12.10.2009 (Annexure P-1) is under challenge whereby the petitioner-workman has been held entitled to compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the respondent-management in view of the fact that his services were terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-workman contends that the Labour Court has returned a specific finding in the light of the admission made by MW-1, namely, P.L.Sayal, Deputy Controller (Finance and Accounts) that the workman had completed more than 240 days in service with the respondent-management in the last calendar year immediately before the termination of his services and further that the petitioner workman had continuously worked with the respondent-management from 29.11.1996 to 28.7.1999 as part-time Water Carrier and further, the termination of services of the workman was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. The Labour Court ought to have ordered reinstatement of the petitioner-workman in service. She contends that the respondent management had not taken a specific stand before the Labour Court that the admission of the petitioner-workman was de hors the statutory rules governing his service and therefore, the Labour Court has wrongly proceeded to hold that the admission of the petitioner-workman being not in consonance with the statutory rules and his appointment being on adhoc/ temporary basis, he would not be entitled to reinstatement in service. In support of her contention, she relies upon a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2010(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 676 : 2010 (2) RSJ-166, wherein it has been held by the Honble Supreme Court that the management having not taken a stand with regard to the initial appointment of the workman being contrary to the recruitment rules and the constitutional Scheme of employment before the Labour Court or before the High Court at the first instance, cannot be allowed to be raised before the High Court when the matter was remitted by the Honble Supreme Court for fresh adjudication. Reliance has also been placed upon a Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kashmir Singh v. Director, State Transport Corporation and others, 2010 (2) SCT-61.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case.

4. When the case came up for hearing on 2.3.2010, learned counsel for the petitioner had sought time to place on record the evidence which the petitioner had led before the Labour Court showing his appointment to be according to the statutory rules governing the service, as the stand by the counsel for the petitioner was that the appointment of the petitioner was in accordance with law. After availing of two opportunities, Civil Misc. No. 5450 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner wherein Annexures P-2 to P-5 were placed on record. None of these documents show that the petitioner was appointed as per statutory rules governing the service. Rather, Annexure P-3 dated 24.3.1998 shows that there was no sanctioned post of water carrier. Annexure P-4 dated 24.3.1999 shows that the sanction was accorded by the respondent for appointment of part-time water carrier from 1.5.1999 to 28.7.1999 on daily- wage rates, at Rs. 1585/- per month. Annexure P-5 dated 17.5.1999 shows that a reference was made by the Additional Director-cum-Principal to the Director (Treasury and Accounts) Finance Department, Punjab, Chandigarh, for sanction of the post of fulltime water carrier for the year 1999-2000. All these documents, reliance whereupon has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, do not indicate that the appointment of the petitioner-workman was against a sanctioned post or was on regular basis or in accordance with the statutory rules governing the service or as