IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 9800 of 2009 Date of Decision : May 19, 2010. State Transport Authority, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh, through Secretary, Dr. Vandana Disodia, HCS. ...... Petitioner . Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh and another ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Babbar Bhan, Advocate, for, Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Joginder Sharma, Advocate, for, Mr. Hardip Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 02.01.2009 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh. Counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No. 2/Workman was appointed as a part time Sweeper and, therefore, would not be entitled to the benefit of provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) as he is not a Workman within the definition as provided unde Section 2(s) of the Act. He contends that the Workman was only working for two hours a day and, therefore, cannot be reinstated in service as has been held in various judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court that the appointment made if not in accordance with the Rules, the Workman would not be entitled to reinstatement. He on this basis contends that the Award passed by the Labour Court impugned herein cannot be sustained. On the other hand, counsel for respondent/Workman contends that it has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case Civil Appeal No. C.W.P. No. 9800 of 2009. -2- 4445 of 2006 Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited Versus A. Sankaralingam, decided on 03.10.2008, that a part time employee would be a Workman as understood under Section 2(s) of the Act and, therefore, would be entitled to the benefit of Section 25-F of the Act. His further contention is that the respondent/Workman has been reinstated in the same position as he was earlier to his termination with only 50% back wages. He on this basis contends that the Award passed by the Labour Court is fully justified as it has been held by the Labour Court that the provisions as contained under Section 25-F of the Act have not been complied with, while terminating the services of the respondent/Workman. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited (supra), the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the respondent/Workman would not be covered under the definition of Workman as provided under Section 2 (s) of the Act cannot be accepted. If that be so, the respondent/Workman was entitled to the protection of Chapter-V of the Act. It is not in dispute that the services of the respondent/Workman were terminated in violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. That being so and in the light of the specific finding given by the Labour Court, the Award passed by the Labour Court dated 02.01.2009 (Annexure-P-1) cannot be said to be illegal or not in accordance with law. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE May 19, 2010. sjks.