C.W.P.No.5170 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.5170 of 2008 Date of Decision: 28.03.2008. Ashok Kumar and another .......Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SARON AND HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr.T.S.Dhindsa, Advocate, for the petitioners. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. The present writ petition has been filed by Ashok Kumar and Baldev Singh. They have prayed that award (Annexure P-1) passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh (hereinafter called the Labour Court) be set aside. It has been averred that the petitioners joined service with the Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Nangal Township, District Ropar (hereinafter called the respondent-Management) on January 1986 and January 1987 respectively on the post of Welders/Fitters on daily wages and their services were terminated on 30.09.1989 without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act C.W.P.No.5170 of 2008 2 for short). It has been further pleaded in the writ petition that there is violation of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act as the juniors of the petitioners-workman have been retained by the respondent-Management. In the present case, the learned Labour Court had given award (Annexure P-1) on 31.08.2004. The present writ petition has been filed on 27.03.2008 after a delay of about four years. We are of the considered view that on delay and latches alone, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. It has been held in P.S.Sadasivaswamy versus State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 2271 which is as under:- “It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extra-ordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. The petitioner's petition, should, therefore, have been dismissed in limine”. We have perused the award (Annexure P-1) also. The learned Labour Court has returned finding of fact that both the petitioners-Ashok Kumar and Baldev Singh have not completed 240 days in one year preceding the date of termination. After examining the evidence, the learned Labour Court held that Ashok Kumar and Baldev Singh had served only for 227 days. The learned Labour Court has also held in para 23 of the award that there is no violation of provisions of Section 25-G & H of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioners were appointed as daily wagers. Their services have not requisitioned through Employment Exchange or in C.W.P.No.5170 of 2008 3 pursuance of the advertisement and their reinstatement will tantamount to backdoor entry in public employment. We have perused the pleadings and heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 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 consistent with Article 14 unless a workman had been appointed by following rules and regulations. We find no infirmity in the award (Annexure P-1). In view of the above, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE March 28, 2008 ( S.S.SARON ) seema JUDGE