RSA No.1531 of 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1531 of 1992 Date of Decision: 21.04.2009 The State of Punjab & Anr. ..Appellants Vs. Karnail Singh & Ors. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.R.L.Gupta, Addl. Advocate, General, Punjab, for the appellants. None for the respondents. --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.2.1992 passed by learned courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents to challenge their termination stands decreed. The plaintiff/respondents were employed as chowkidars Muktsar Depot, Punjab Roadways and after they rendered services for 7 years vide order dated 1.10.1987 their services were terminated without assigning any reason. Order of termination was challenged before the civil court inter-alia on the grounds that no reason was given, and the order of RSA No.1531 of 1992 2 termination was arbitrary. The stand of the appellants was that the plaintiffs were appointed purely on daily wages. They were not regular employees, and their services were terminated in accordance with the contract of service. Learned trial court was pleased to decree the suit holding that order of termination was arbitrary, and was not an order of retrenchment as no retrenchment compensation was paid. The findings recorded by learned trial couret have been affirmed by the learned lower appellant court. Judgment and decree is challenged on the plea that since the respondents were employed on daily wages their services could be terminated at any time, as per the terms of the contract. The stand of the plaintiff/respondents was, however, that the State can not be allowed to act in arbitrary manner, as the services of an employee could not be terminated without any reason, after 7 years of service. The only justification given for termination was that the post of chowkidar stood abolished. However, it is not in dispute that no notice before their termination was issued nor any alternative employment was offered to the respondents/employees, though number of juniors to the plaintiff/respondents continued to be in service. One of the questions for consideration in this appeal is “Whether the termination of services of plaintiff/respondents after 7 years without assigning any reason would be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?” The learned Addl. Advocate General, Punjab contends that in addition the appeal raises the following substantial questions of law: RSA No.1531 of 1992 3 1. Whether daily wage employees could be regularized in view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi 2006 (6) SCC 1? 2. Whether the plaintiff/respondents could be treated to be regular employees in the absence of any order of regularization by competent authority? 3. Whether the civil court had the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit? There is no necessity to go into the merit of substantial questions of law raised, as it is not in dispute, that in pursuance to the judgment and decree of the learned courts below the plaintiff/respondents continued to serve the department, and have retired on attaining the age of superannuation. In view of reasons stated above, this appeal has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such. 21.04.2009 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge