Civil Writ Petition No.8964 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Civil Writ Petition No.8964 of 2006 Date of Decision:12.11.2008 The Director, Haryana State Lotteries Department, Chandigarh. .....Petitioner Vs. Suresh and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Tarunveer Vashisth, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by the Director, Haryana State Lotteries Department, Chandigarh- petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned award dated 9.11.2005 Annexure P.6. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that Suresh Kumar – respondent (hereinafter to be referred as `the workman') was initially engaged on daily wages basis with effect from 1.6.2001 on the basis of need of the work for specific period which works out to 149 days with some breaks. He was not allowed extension of service on completion of work, because he had left the job himself on 31.10.2002. He was a casual daily wager. His engagement was only to continue with availability of the work. He had no right to hold the post on regular basis. So his services automatically came to an end with the efflux of time. Being a daily wager, Civil Writ Petition No.8964 of 2006 -2- his services were not covered under the statutory rules and as such, the petitioner was not supposed to adopt any specific procedure to remove the workman from work, who served a demand notice dated 3.7.2002 and claimed reinstatement in service with full back-wages along with other service benefits. He again filed demand notice dated 18.8.2003. The matter was referred to the Labour Court, Ambala. The following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the order terminating the services of the workman is illegal, null and void and is liable to be set aside and the workman is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back-wages? OPW 2. Whether the respondent- department is not industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? OPM 3. Relief. After hearing the representatives of the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned Presiding Officer,Labour Court, Ambala directed the respondent- Management to reinstate the petitioner- workman in service with all consequential service benefits including continuity of service and full back-wages. Feeling aggrieved therewith,the petitioner has preferred this petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the findings returned by both the Courts below with due care and circumspection. Mr. Tarunveer Vashisth, on behalf of the State argued that this matter is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Division Bench Civil Writ Petition No.8964 of 2006 -3- of this Court in re: C.W.P. No.2520 of 2006 (The Director, Haryana State Lotteries Department, Chandigarh v. Sanjay Kumar and others), and that being so, this petition is liable to be accepted and the impugned award may be set aside. Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate representing the workman could not controvert this contention in a successful manner. In re: Sanjay Kumar's case (supra), it has been observed as under:- During the course of arguments, Ms. Palika Monga, AAG, Haryana has stated that the Department of Lotteries is not functioning now in the State of Haryana and requirement of services of workmen was as per requirement of a particular Scheme and after the completion of work, the services of the employees so engaged was no longer required. It has been further argued that daily wager cannot claim public employment without proper selection. In the present case, neither any advertisement was given, nor names were requisitioned from the Employment Exchange, therefore, giving affect to the present award, will tantamount to the backdoor entry into the public employment. We have also heard Sh. Babbar Bhan, Advocate for the workman. We find that the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Samrala Vs. Raj Kumar (2006) 3 SCC 81, is that unless an employee is appointed as per rules and regulations, her appointment cannot be treated to be consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Civil Writ Petition No.8964 of 2006 -4- Constitution. Appointment given de hors the rules and regulations is liable to be terminated and is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act and thus, does not amount to retrenchment. Similarly, in Gangadhar Pillai V. Siemens Limited (2007) 1 SCC 533, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. V. Workmen (2007) 1 SCC 408, Reserve Bank of India Vs. Gopinath Sharma and another (2006) 6 SCC 221 and Power Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and others, (2007) 5 SCC 755, it has been held that reinstatement of a workman in public employment will not be consistent with Article 14 unless a workman had been appointed by following rules and regulations. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned award is set-aside. To my mind, no contrary view can be taken to the above observations. Sequelly, this petition is allowed and the impugned award is set aside. November 12, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No