Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3357  OF 2008

CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, HOUSING BOARD HARYANA   Appellant(s)

                    :VERSUS:

DIWAN CHAND                                  Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1. Heard  Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned counsel  

in support of this appeal and Mr. Adarsh Ganesh,  

learned counsel appearing for the respondent.  

2. This  appeal seeks to challenge the judgment  

and order dated 23.01.2007 passed by the High Court  

of  Punjab  and  Haryana  at  Chandigarh  in  C.W.P.  

No.16553 of 2005 which confirms the order passed by  

the Labour Court in Reference No.134 of 2001.  

3. The short facts leading to this appeal are  

this wise. The respondent was working as a Motormate  

in the appellant Housing Board.  The case of the

Page 2

2

respondent was that he had put in more than 240 days  

service  in  a  year  when  his  services  came  to  be  

terminated some time in the year 1996.  This led to  

a reference to the Labour Court. The Labour Court  

was of the view that there was no compliance of the  

provisions  of  Section  25-F  of  the  Industrial  

Disputes  Act,  1947  and  therefore,  it  awarded  

reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of  

service without back-wages. That order has been left  

undisturbed  by  the  High  Court.  Therefore,  this  

appeal by special leave.  

4. Mr. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the  

appellant Housing Board submitted that according to  

the appellant the respondent had not put in 240 days  

service  in  one  year  and  therefore,  instead  of  

reinstatement, an appropriate amount of compensation  

be  awarded.  Mr.  Adarsh  Ganesh,  learned  counsel  

appearing  for  the  respondent  on  the  other  hand,  

submitted that the order of reinstatement passed by  

the  Labour  Court  cannot  be  faulted  since  the  

respondent had in fact put in more than 240 days in  

the concerned year and, therefore, the termination  

was bad.  

Page 3

3

5. We  have  noted  the  submissions  of  both  the  

learned counsel. We cannot deviate from the finding  

of fact that the respondent had put in more than 240  

days  in  the  relevant  year.  Therefore,  his  

termination on the face of it was bad.  However, we  

accept the submission made by  Mr. Hegde that since  

the  respondent  was  not  in  service  for  very  long  

period, it would be better if an appropriate amount  

of  compensation  is  paid  to  him  instead  of  

reinstatement.  We,  therefore,  modify  the  order  

passed by the Labour Court and substitute it by an  

award of compensation for a sum of Rs.1 lakh to be  

paid to the respondent within a period of four weeks  

from today.  The appeal is disposed of accordingly.  

.........................J (H.L. GOKHALE)

..........................J (RANJAN GOGOI)

New Delhi; April 03, 2013.