Civil Writ Petition No. 5913 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 5913 of 2008 Date of decision: April 24, 2008 Min Bahadur … Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Ajay Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA , J. Min Bahadur, petitioner-workman was appointed as Peon on daily wages in the various Bank branches Sector 17-C, Sector 9 and Sector 22, Chandigarh of respondent-management, from 21.01.1995 to 24.01.1996. He was again re-appointed on 27.06.1997 as Peon but his services were terminated on 17th June, 1998. These facts are evident from demand notice (Annexure P-1) and statement of claim of workman (Annexure P-2). In the written statement to the claim statement, respondent-management stated that petitioner was engaged as a temporary/ casual employee with no right for continuation in service. The petitioner-workman was not re-engaged when there was no need of his services. Central Government referred the dispute to the Tribunal-cum- Labour Court for adjudication. Before the Labour Court, counsel for the Civil Writ Petition No. 5913 of 2008 2 management submitted that the workman was engaged to meet the exigencies and he was not appointed against regular sanctioned post. Name of the petitioner was not requisitioned through employment exchange and no public notice/ advertisement was given, no interview/ selection process was carried out, hence the petitioner cannot lay any claim for re-instatement and there is no violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi, 2006(4) Supreme Court Cases, page 1, learned Labour Court held that petitioner is not entitled to any re- instatement or regularization or payment of back wages, but since provisions of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act were not followed petitioner is entitled to compensation amounting to Rs.40,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner-workman has submitted that termination of petitioner was illegal and petitioner was entitled to full back wages and re-instatement into service. We find that the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Samrala v. Raj Kumar (2006) 3 SCC 81 is that unless an employee is appointed as per rules and regulations, his appointment cannot be treated to be consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Appointment given de hors the rules and regulations is liable to termination 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 v. Gopinath Sharma and another (2006) 6 SCC 221 and UP Power Corporation Ltd. and another v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and others (2007) 5 SCC 755, it has been held that reinstatement of a workman in public employment will not be Civil Writ Petition No. 5913 of 2008 3 consistent with Article 14 unless a workman had been appointed by following rules and regulations. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that no interference is called for. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE [ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA] JUDGE April 24, 2008 rps