Ajaypal Singh vs Presiding Officer and Another

This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition of the respondent-management against award of reinstatement with backwages and continuity of service.

The workman worked for about two years on temporary basis as Work Mistry and his services were terminated. The workman raised an industrial dispute alleging violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act"). The Labour Court upheld the claim of the workman and directed reinstatement with backwages and continuity of service. The management challenged the said award, by submitting that appointment to a public post having been made without following the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution, reinstatement was not justified and at best, the workman could be given compensation, if it was held that there was violation of Section 25F of the Act.

Learned Single Judge upheld the said plea, after referring to judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority and Another Vs. Ashok Kumar and Another, , Mahboob Deepak Vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula and Another, , M.P. Administration v. Tribhuwan (2007) 9 SCC 748, State of M.P. and Others Vs. Lalit Kumar Verma, and Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai and Anr. 2006(2) SCC 684, Telecom District Manager and Others Vs. Keshab Deb, and Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ishwar Singh and Anr. 2008(3) SCT 788.

We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that award of the Labour Court was upheld by this Court in the case of another workman vide order dated 18.10.1996 in C.W.P. No. 7045 of 1993 Haryana Warehouse Corporation v. Presiding Officer and Anr.

We are unable to accept the submission. After the judgment of this Court in Haryana Warehouse Corporation (supra), several judgments have been delivered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, holding that reinstatement of a workman to a public post could not be allowed if the workman has not been recruited after following the mandatory requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The said judgment of learned Single Judge, given in the year 1996, which is in conflict with above judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, cannot be followed.

We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.

The appeal is dismissed.