IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.10326 of 2008 Date of Decision:01.07.2008. Krishan Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus The Secretary and others ...Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr.S.S.Hira, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (ORAL) The challenge in the writ petition is to the award Annexure P-1 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, vide which the reference has been answered against the petitioner. The petitioner who was working as a Beldar on daily wages since May, 1989, his services were terminated on 19.03.1993. He raised an industrial dispute challenging his termination, as according to him, provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act were not followed. Before the Labour Court, apart from the statement, made by the workman that he worked from 1989 to 1993, no cogent evidence was led by the petitioner. Even on behalf of the respondent-Management, no evidence was led. The Labour Court, while deciding the reference against the petitioner, held that as the petitioner was a daily wager, the Labour Court while placing reliance upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the petitioner was a daily wager, therefore, he is not entitled to reinstatement. C.W.P. No.10326 of 2008 --2-- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had served more than 240 days continuously, therefore, retrenchment compensation ought to have been offered to him before retrenching his services. A perusal of the impugned award shows that while relying upon number of judicial pronouncements, the Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently held that in case of public employment, where the workman takes back-door entry in service by way of illegal appointment, which is not in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the appointment is temporary, on daily wages, Muster Rolls basis or on adhoc basis, such person would have no right to reinstatement and a person who takes entry in the service on the basis of such appointment, knows that no permanence is attached and his services are liable to be terminated at any point of time and only because an employee has been working for more than 240 days that, by itself, would not confer any legal right upon him to be regularized in services and if an appointment has been made contrary to the provisions of the statute, the same would be void and the effect thereof would be that no legal right would be derived by the employee by reason thereof and if the circumstances, as noticed hereinabove exist, it has to be held that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act will not be attracted. In the present case as the petitioner was appointed as a Beldar on daily wage basis, hence, he has no right to claim reinstatement. Accordingly, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE July 01, 2008 (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) seema JUDGE