IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 14786 of 2009. Date of Decision : April 22, 2010. Smt. Daya ...... Petitioner . Versus. State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Parveen Gupta, Advocate, for, Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for respondents No 3 to 6. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 26.08.2008 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court-I, Gurgaon, vide which the reference had been answered against the petitioner, holding him entitled to no relief as she was a part time employee and her appointment was de hors the statutory Rules and further that the termination of services of the petitioner would be covered under Section 2 (oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . Counsel for the petitioner contends that even if the findings, as recorded by the Labour Court, are taken to be correct, a specific statement had been made by the Management Witness, wherein he had admitted that the petitioner had continuously worked from July, 1993 to 31.03.2002 on part time basis as Sweeper with respondent/Management. This goes to show that the petitioner had completed more than 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months from the date of her termination and, therefore, even if the petitioner is not C.W.P. No. 14786 of 2009. -2- entitled to reinstatement in service, but still entitled to the claim of compensation for the period she had worked with respondent/Management in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Suprme Court in the case of Telecom District Manager and others Versus Kesheb Deb 2008 (4) SCT 33 , and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another, 2008 (3) SCT 788. On the other hand, counsel for respondent/Management contends that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on part time basis and not on regular basis. She does not have any right to hold the post and her appointment was not in accordance with the statutory Rules, governing the service and, thus, the petitioner cannot be reinstated in service. He supports the Award passed by the Labour Court by contending that such a termination would be covered under Section 2 (oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, would not fall within the definition of retrenchment, which would entitle her to any compensation. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a part time Sweeper and he worked with respondent/Management from July, 1993 to 31.03.2002. It has been authoritatively held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that the part time employees are also covered by the definition of Workman and, thus, entitled to the protection of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That being so, the respondent/Management having admitted the fact that the petitioner had continuously worked with it from July, 1993 to 31.03.2002, the petitioner if not entitled to reinstatement in service as her appointment was de hors the statutory Rules governing the service, would be entitled to compensation for the period she had put in service with the C.W.P. No. 14786 of 2009. -3- respondent/Management as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Telecom District Manager and others (supra), and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh (supra). In view of the above, the Award dated 26.08.2008 (Annexure-P- 1), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Gurgaon, is modified to the extent that the petitioner would be entitled to compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Keeping in view the length of service rendered by the petitioner with the respondent/Managfcement, the compensation is assessed at Rs. 1,20,000/-, which shall be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE April 22, 2010. sjks.