IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.144 of 2008 Date of decision : 28th August, 2008 Deputy Director of Agriculture, Kurukshetra (Haryana) … Petitioner Versus Salig Ram and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present : Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Additional Advocate General Haryana for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Bangia, Advocate for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Present writ petition has been preferred by Deputy Director of Agriculture, Kurukshetra (hereinafter called the ‘management’) against Salig Ram (hereinafter called the ‘workman’) and Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala. Petitioner-management has prayed that award dated 19.07.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Ambala be set aside. A short point for consideration before us is that respondent- workman, who was employed as a part-time Mali, can be construed to be workman under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) or not and if so, he is entitled to retrenchment Civil Writ Petition 144 of 2008 compensation or not. In the demand notice sent by the respondent- workman, in para 1, he has stated as under: “1. That the petitioner was appointed as part time Mali in your department on December 1993 to work for four hours daily.” Therefore, it is admitted position that the workman was employed as a part-time Mali. Learned Labour Court, after examining the evidence, held that the workman has worked for more than 240 days and his services could not be terminated without compliance of Section 25-F of the Act. Therefore, the Labour Court concluded as under: “Keeping in view my findings in the aforesaid the issues, claim of the petitioner-workman succeeds and the same is hereby accepted with costs. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and full back wages alongwith all the service benefits admissible to him according to law.” The view taken by the Labour Court is not tenable. Hon'ble Apex Court, in Uttranchal Forest Hospital Trust v. Dinesh Kumar (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 542 held that part-time worker is not entitled to retrenchment compensation. This view has also been reiterated by a Full Bench of this Court in Gobind v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar and another in CWP No. 4660 of 1999 decided on 22nd May, 2008, wherein it has been held as under: “In view of facts mentioned above, we conclude that a part time worker would fall within the definition of a workman as postulated under Section 2(a) 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 2 Civil Writ Petition 144 of 2008 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 authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court and the view taken by a Full Bench of this Court in Gobind’s case (supra), we have no other option except to allow the present writ petition and set aside the impugned award. Accordingly, present writ petition is allowed and impugned award is set aside. [HEMANT GUPTA] JUDGE [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 28, 2008. rps 3