CWP No.3212 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No.3212 of 2009 Date of decision July 17, 2009 Satya Pal ....... Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. J. S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D. S. Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. **** 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? K. Kannan, J(oral). 1. The writ petition challenges the award passed by the Labour Court, Ambla dismissing the reference sought at the instance of the workman claiming that he had been illegally terminated. According to him the was working as a daily wager as a Mali-cum- Chowkidar from 6.6.2000 and he had been in continuous service till he was lawfully terminated on 8.1.2004. On behalf of the respondent-Management a plea was taken that he had voluntarily abandoned service on 8.1.2004 and he had not joined subsequently. The Labour Court rejected the contention of the Management and found on weighty evidence placed on behalf of the workman of WW-1 and WW-50 that the workman was in employment till 8.1.2004 and he had established that he had worked for 240 days continuously before the termination. The Labour Court, however still did not grant relief sought for on the ground that his engagement could qualify for exception to the term retrenchment under Section 2 (oo) (bb) CWP No.3212 of 2009 2 and denied to him any relief. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the decisions relied on by the Labour Court applied to cases where engagement had been on a specific contract for a specified period and again the decisions that took the guidance from Secretary, State of Karnatka and others Vs. Umadevi and others 2006 (4) SCC 1 ought to understood as applicable only to civil services and the service with respondent-Management could not be likened to civil services. 3. Although, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (supra) was with reference to a civil service and the effect of illegal appointments the principle enunciated in the said judgment clearly held down that in respect of any public appointment which are governed by statutory rules and regulations if there is any violation, mere length of service would not afford to a workman any right to seek for either regularization or reinstatement. This principle has been followed in several decisions and applied in Labour Jurisprudence also in cases where violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution is made out. The respondent-Management is a department of the Government and no recruitment rule could provide for employment without the normal process of selection through advertisement or sponsorship through employment exchange. If the award of the Labour Court would fail in any way, it was its assumption that the termination of services did not fall within the definition of retrenchment. Even for applying Section 2 (oo) (bb) there shall be specific contractual terms that sets out the actual tenure of employment. An ad hoc employment or employment as a daily wager ought not to be always understood as a contractual employment that would fall within the excepted categories of retrenchment. Having regard to the finding that the workman had put in 240 days before his termination and having further regard to the fact that the Labour Court was rejecting the plea on behalf of CWP No.3212 of 2009 3 State that he had been employed only in a spell of three months in the previous years, I accept the contention of the workman that he had been engaged from 6.6.2002. By such reckoning, the workman would have put in about 3 years and 7 months of employment. Having regard to the fact that his services were terminated in 2004 and he has been fighting for justice for more than 5 years, the workman shall be entitled to compensation that would fit with the status of his employment and length of service. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the event of compensation he shall be granted at least 20,000/- per year of service. There is no hard and fast rule relating to compensation and it is not possible to discern from any judgment of this Hon'ble Court or from the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there should be a particular sum of over 20,000/-. The guidance that has come through pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have been that the Court shall have due regard to the hard realities of life of a workman losing his job who had been engaged as a daily wager. Committing the state or its functionaries to large fiscal burden would equally be inappropriate without diluting the effect of violation of Article 14 and 16 that the new dispensation in Uma Devi's case (supra) and other decisions have laid down, in my view, the appropriate compensation would be Rs.35,000/- which is payable within a period of 2 months and if there is any default, the amount shall bear simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The order of the Labour Court is set aside. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 17, 2009 archana