Civil Writ Petition No.8057 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8057 of 2007 Date of decision: 29th April, 2008 Avtar Singh … Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. R.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Present writ petition has been filed by Avtar Singh assailing the impugned award (Annexure P-2), whereby reference made under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) has been declined. Case of the petitioner is that he was employed as Helper on 01.01.1998 and illegally his services were terminated on 24.12.1998. He stated that he had completed 240 days in the last 12 preceding months and therefore, his termination without payment of retrenchment compensation as envisaged under Section 25-F of the Act cannot be sustained and he is entitled to be re-instated in service with continuity in service and back wages. A demand notice to this effect was served by the workman on 05.07.1999. Respondent-management took a definite stand that case of the petitioner is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act and termination of the petitioner cannot be construed as violation Civil Writ Petition No.8057 of 2007 2 of Section 25-F of the Act. Respondent-management also took a stand that petitioner was appointed on 89 days basis and had not completed 240 days but he has worked only for 157 days. The learned Labour Court returned finding of fact that the petitioner has only worked for 133 days, therefore, he has failed to prove that he worked for 240 days continuously in the preceding 12 calendar months. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that learned Labour Court committed a grave error in computing the days. Be as it may, the workman was a daily-wager. He was on 89 days contract, which was renewed after a gap of few days. The petitioner was not appointed in pursuance of requisition of his name through employment exchange or public advertisement. In the present case, workman was not appointed as per the rules and regulations but was a contractual employee on daily wages and termination of his services did not amount to retrenchment. He could not be reinstated in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1. 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. Civil Writ Petition No.8057 of 2007 3 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. Hence, we find no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE [ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA] JUDGE April 29, 2008 rps