C.W.P. No.16570 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.16570 of 2004 DATE OF DECISION : 18.3.2011 State of Haryana PETITIONER VERSUS Kamla Devi and another RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri Harish Rathee, Senior D.A.G. Haryana for the petitioner/State. MAHESH GROVER, J. The State of Haryana has impugned the award of the Labour Court, Panipat dated 28.1.2004. The respondent/workman claimed a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the following effect :- “Between the services of Smt.Kamla Devi have been terminated validly or not, if not, whether she is entitled to reinstatement with back wages, to what amount of back wages?” C.W.P. No.16570 of 2004 -2- The respondent/workman had raised a demand on 20.4.2000 and alleged that she was appointed as Class-IV employee from 23.1.1995 to 29.2.2000 and his work and conduct was satisfactory, but despite that, his services were terminated on 1.3.2000 verbally and without assigning any reason. She pleaded that he was appointed against a regular post and had completed more than 240 days of service and his termination was illegal without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. He further pleaded that since persons juniors to him have been permitted to work, therefore, there was violation of the provisions of Section 25G and 25H of the Act. The petitioner pleaded that it was not an industry and the respondent was not a workman. The petitioner was appointed as a Part Time Kahar in Govt. Middle School, Model Town, Sonepat till 29.2.2000 and has been paid her salary upto date. A part time employee is recruited on year to year basis in the Govt. School for two hours daily. The post is sanctioned every year failing which their services automatically come to an end. They are being paid on the basis of fixed D.C. rates. After 29.2.2000, no sanction for the post of Class-IV employee was obtained, and thus, the services of the respondent came to an end as per instructions of the Government. It was also pleaded that the respondent had not completed 240 days of service. The Tribunal concluded that the respondent/workman had completed 240 days of service and his termination was illegal and it was done without compliance of the provisions of the Act. It then directed reinstatement of the respondent/workman along with 1/3rd of the back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 20.4.2000. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 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 C.W.P. No.16570 of 2004 -3- 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 :- “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