IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.3998 of 2011 Date of decision : 7.3.2011 Rakesh Gaur ....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Gurgaon and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr.Surinder Dagar, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner has impugned the award of the Industrial Tribunal-Cum Labour Court-II,Gurgaon, which had declined his reference made under Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which was to the following effect :- “Whether termination of the service of Shri Rakesh Gaur is justified or not? If not, to what relief he is entitled to? The petitioner raised a demand that he was appointed as Computer Operator on 16.3.2005 on a monthly salary of Rs.3,200/- as fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon. He worked regularly till the time his services were terminated on 6.7.2007 and at that point of time he was drawing Rs.3,655/- per month. He claimed that the C.W.P.No.3998 of 2011 -2- termination of his services was wrong and contrary to the provisions of the Act. The respondents No.2 and 3 pleaded that they were not an industry and the reference was not maintainable. It was pleaded that the services of the petitioner were contractual and not regular as claimed by him. His employment was for a specific period and for a specific assignment. No appointment letter was issued to him. It was admitted that he worked from 16.3.2005 to 5.7.2007 with intermittent breaks. It was denied that the services of the petitioner were terminated on 6.7.2007, rather the petitioner had abandoned the services. The Tribunal declined the reference by holding the petitioner to be a contractual employee and not entitled to any relief under the Act. On due consideration and upon perusal of the impugned award, I find that there is material on record to suggest that the petitioner was engaged as Computer Operator on daily wages on the rates which were fixed by the Deputy Commissioner. This is precisely the case which he had set up in the demand notice. There is nothing to suggest that his services were regular. It is a settled principle of law that a person who has been appointed on contractual basis, his services can be dispensed with at any point of time in terms of his appointment. There is also nothing to suggest that any other person was retained in service in place of the petitioner which could indicate unfair labour practice or violation of the provisions of Section 25H of the Act. It has been noticed by the Tribunal that the petitioner while C.W.P.No.3998 of 2011 -3- appearing as PW1 admitted that he had not reported for duty and thus a finding was recorded regarding the abandonment of job. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any material from which it could be inferred that these observations made by the Tribunal were not justified. In any eventuality even if this aspect is to be ignored, since the petitioner was working on contractual basis, employed only on the rates fixed by the Deputy Commissioner with no regular appointment in his favour, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity committed by the Tribunal, as the employer cannot be burdened with the liability of an employee whose services are not required. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 7.3.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss