CWP No. 9567 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 9567 of 2010 Date of decision: 21.05.2010 Mahesh Saini s/o Sh. Lachmi Chand ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Gurgaon and others ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the Award dated 17.06.2009 (Annexure P-3), vide which the reference has been answered against the workman holding him not entitled to any relief under the Industrial Disputes Act. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the services of the petitioner were retrenched because of financial constraints and non- availability of work. No principle of 'First come Last go' was complied with as it is an admitted position that no seniority list was maintained by the CWP No. 9567 of 2010 2 Management. His further contention is that as per Ex. WW1/2, the services of other labourers were engaged after the termination of services of the petitioner and, therefore, respondent No. 2-Management violated the provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. Apart from this, as per Ex. PW1/A, which is letter dated 02.05.1997 sent by the XEN to the Superintending Engineer PWD, Public Health Circle, Gurgaon, there was a shortage of 33 employees in the four divisions of the respondent- Department at Gurgaon, which clearly showed that the vacancies were available and, therefore, the petitioner could have been engaged against those posts. He, on this basis, contends that the Labour Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and records and misguided itself while denying the petitioner the benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. Ex. PW1/A only depicts that there was a shortage of 33 employees in four divisions of the respondent-Department i.e. PWD, Public Health Circle, Gurgaon. Merely because there is a shortage does not mean that any workman, who has been retrenched, is conferred with the right to be appointed against the said vacancies. It is the choice of the employer whether to fill up the vacancies or not and no one can claim that as a matter of right unless the posts have been properly advertised and the selection made in accordance with the statutory Rules governing the service as these posts would be public posts. As regards Ex. WW1/2, which is a document showing that other labourers have been engaged in service after the termination of the petitioner, a perusal of the Award indicates that the said employees were CWP No. 9567 of 2010 3 appointed as per outsourcing policy through a contractor and does not depict that the said workers were appointed on daily wage basis in a particular project as also the nature and duration of the project is not depicted therein, which would confer any right on the workman or it could be said that provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with. Nothing has been brought on record on behalf of the petitioner which would suggest that the persons junior to him were retained in service. No records have been summoned in support of the contention, which has been raised by the workman before the Labour Court which would substantiate his claim before the Labour Court. The petitioner had admitted before the Labour Court that his services have been retrenched because of financial constraints and non-availability of work. The amount of retrenchment compensation has been duly paid to him. There is no dispute with regard to the payment of wages for the period he has worked. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the Award passed by the Labour Court is not in accordance with law or there is any irregularity or illegality in the Award passed by the Labour Court. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE May 21, 2010 pj