JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J.

Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the workman against the order dated 16.04.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.6479 of 2014 Maharaja Aggarsain Institute of Medical Research and Education, Agroha and another v. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and another'.

2. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the management and set aside the award dated 01.08.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court and directed that the appellant-workman be paid a sum of Rs. 1 lakh and adjusted the amount which had already been paid vide the interim orders passed earlier. The reasoning given by the learned Single Judge was that since the workman had only worked for 215 days on daily wage basis preceding his date of termination and was working as Beldar-cum-Mali from 12.03.2006 to 12.12.2006, therefore, the period of 240 days was not made out since the holidays and weekly rest had also been wrongly counted by the Labour Court. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation v. Management of American Express International banking Corporation , AIR 1986 SC 458 to come to the said conclusion.

3. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge was not sustainable and submitted that the order of the Labour Court as such should not have been interfered with under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

4. We have heard counsels for both the parties. A perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that it was the case of the appellant-workman that he was employed on daily wage basis and due to the termination he had claimed the statutory protection of Section 25 -F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (for short 1947 Act'). Resultantly, he had filed a demand notice dated 11.06.2007 in support of his claim. He had appeared and given his statement. The record had also been produced by the Management which was in pursuance to an application filed by the workman. There was a categorical statement by MW1-Head of the Human Resources and Administration Department that the employee had only worked for 215 days and details had also been given along-with the attendance register. The said fact was also noticed by the Labour Court, who held that the weekly rests were also to be included to the tune of 36 days and, therefore, by adding the same to the 215 days, it was held that he had worked for 251 days and had completed more than 240 days. Therefore, it was held that he was entitled for reinstatement as there was violation of Section 25 -F of the 1947 Act.

5. However, it was held that the workman had not proved the fact that any other person was recruited by the Management after his termination and, therefore, Section 25 -H was held not to be violated, but Section 25 -G violation was proved on account of the fact that persons who had been employed later from June, 2006 to February, 2007 were in employment. Thus, it was held that he was entitled for reinstatement, but was denied the backwages.

6. We are of the considered opinion that keeping in view the above and the fact that the employment was for a short period of 9 months, the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Bhurumal , (2014) 7 SCC 177 would come into play. The consistent view of the Apex Court is to grant compensation for short service, as has been noticed in Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Om Pal , (2007) 5 SCC 742 wherein Rs.25,000/- was granted for the service of one year whereas in Uttaranchal Fo