C.W.P. No.6930 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.6930 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION : 18.3.2011 Uttari Haryana Vidyut Vitran Nigam Mandal PETITIONER VERSUS Smt.Shanti Devi and another RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri K.D.S.Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Bhardwaj, Advocate. MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner/Management has impugned the award of the Labour Court, Panipat dated 14.12.2005.. A reference was claimed under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) :- “Whether the services of Smt.Shanti Devi have been terminated validly or not? If not, whether she is entitled to any relief?” The respondent/workman had raised a demand on 25.3.2002 against the petitioner/management alleging that she was appointed as a Part Time Water C.W.P. No.6930 of 2006 -2- Carrier (4 hours) on a salary of Rs.1235/- per month and worked with the petitioner from 16.8.1988 to 30.9.2001 and her work and conduct was satisfactory, but her services were terminated erroneously without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. She further alleged that the persons junior to her were still working and, therefore, there has been violation of the provisions of Sections 25G and 25H of the Act. The petitioner/management set up a plea that the respondent was not a workman within the definition of the Act and that he was engaged on Part Time basis, on D.C. rates on a salary of Rs.1235/- per month on contractual basis. After 30.9.2001 her services were not required by the petitioner/management. They pleaded that the provisions of the Act were neither attracted, nor violated. It was specifically pleaded that no person junior to the respondent was working with the management. The Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the workman and ordered her reinstatement with continuity in service with full back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 25.3.2002. The question which has been raised herein is as to whether a part time employee like the respondent/workman was entitled to the benefits of the Industrial Disputes Act and whether a part time worker who comes within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act, can also be treated to be a workman within the meaning of the Act, so as to be held entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Act in particular the provisions of Chapter IIA & V.B thereof. The question which has been raised herein was referred to the Full Bench in C.W.P. No.4660 of 1999 and in the admission order, the petition was ordered to be listed after the decision of the Full Bench. The Full Bench of this Court has since rendered the decision on 22.5.2008 and it has been concluded as under :- C.W.P. No.6930 of 2006 -3- “In view of the facts mentioned above, we conclude that a part time worker would fall within the definition of a workman as postulated under Sections 2(s) of the I.D.Act. However, nature of his employment will be that of a contractual employee and employer be at liberty to terminate him and his termination would not entitle him to get any benefit under the provisions of Chapter VA and VB of the I.D.Act. It is further clarified that to enforce rights and obligations arising under contract of employment, may be in writing or oral, the part time worker may invoke the provisions of I.D.Act other than contained in Chapter VA and VB of the Act.” In view of the aforesaid, when there is no dispute that the respondent/workman was working on part time basis and in view of the observations made by the Full Bench, as extracted above, I am of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned award deserves to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. (MAHESH GROVER) March 18, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO