AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, delay of 240 days in filing of the
appeal is hereby condoned. CM stands disposed of.
LPA-3386-2012
The appellant was appointed on 16-10-1995 as Electrician on daily-wage basis in the Government Institute of Engineering & Technology,
Hisar. He continued to work as such till November 1998. After his retrenchment, he raised an industrial dispute alleging that his services were
dispensed with without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the
Act""). The Labour Court allowed the reference and awarded him compensation of Rs. 25,000/- in lieu of his reinstatement. The appellant was not
satisfied with the award of the Labour Court, hence preferred writ petition before this Court, but the learned single Judge found that there was
nothing on record to suggest that the appellant was appointed against the sanctioned post as the order of his engagement suggested that he was
given a backdoor entry in a Government institute. The writ petition was, thus, disposed of upholding the order of the Labour Court declining the
reinstatement but enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs. 40,000/-.
In this appeal, it has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that he is ready to be reinstated, without back-wages. He has also filed an
application alleging that the vacancy is available in the Institute as one Ram Niwas is working as Electrician for the past 4 months through a
contractor.
During the course of hearing, it has been admitted by counsel for the appellant that the appellant is presently employed in the Industrial Training
Institute, Jind.
On the other hand, learned State counsel has argued that in the absence of availability of post, the appellant cannot be adjusted and since he is
already in Government job in the ITI, Jind, his re-instatement in the previous employment is unwarranted. After hearing learned counsel for the
parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the order of the learned single
Judge to be interfered with by this Court except that the amount of compensation awarded is found to be less as the appellant has been engaged in
litigation since long. Consequently, the amount of Rs. 40,000/- awarded by the learned single Judge to the appellant is accordingly enhanced to Rs.
1,00,000/-.
With this observation, the present appeal is hereby dismissed.