Civil Writ Petition No. 6007 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 6007 of 2008 Date of Decision: 10.4.2008 Sarwan Kumar …Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and Others. …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Rajesh Punj, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. The present writ petition has been preferred by the workman challenging the award dated 8.8.2007 (Annexure P12) passed by the Labour Court wherein it has been held that workman is not entitled to reinstatement and back wages. Learned Labour Court has relied upon the testimony of MW.1 Suleman Mohd., Senior Co-ordinator, Krishi Gyan Kendra, Ambala City, who has stated that the appointment of petitioner-workman has neither been through the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act nor through any advertisement in newspaper and that neither any interview of the Civil Writ Petition No. 6007 of 2008 2 petitioner was conducted nor any appointment letter was issued to him. Learned Labour Court further held that in these circumstances, appointment of petitioner cannot be termed anything else except as an act of favouritism against the principles of public employment. In demand notice dated 12.8.1997 (Annexure P1), petitioner has stated that he was employed as Beldar. We have specifically asked learned counsel for petitioner that since principles regarding public employment as envisaged in Constitutional Scheme providing equal opportunity under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution have not been adhered to how petitioner is entitled to continuity of service. Mr. Rajesh Punj, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner stated that this was never an issue before the Labour Court, therefore, Labour Court could not have gone into these questions. We are afraid that we cannot accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. The workman who has not been appointed as per rules and regulations but was a contractual employment on daily wages. Termination of his services will not amount to retrenchment. Therefore, he cannot be reinstated in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Others v. Uma Devi and Others (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1. We find that the view taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Samrala v. Raj Kumar (2006) 3 Supreme Court Cases 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 Civil Writ Petition No. 6007 of 2008 3 rules and regulations is liable to termination and is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and thus, does not amount to retrenchment. Similarly, in Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Limited (2007)1 Supreme Court Cases 533, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen (2007)1 Supreme Court Cases 408, Reserve Bank of India v. Gopinath Sharma and another (2006) 6 supreme Court Cases 221 and U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Another v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and Others (2007) 5 Supreme Court Cases 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. Hence, we uphold the award dated 8.8.2007 (Annexure P12) and find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge (Ashutosh Mohunta) Judge April 10, 2008 “DK”