C.W.P. No.17258 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.17258 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION : 18.3.2011 The Principal, Vaish College, Bhiwani & another PETITIONERS VERSUS The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak and another RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri Akshay Bhan, Advocate and Shri Santosh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Harish Rathee, Senior D.A.G. Haryana. MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner/Management has impugned the award of the Labour Court, Rohtak dated 1.5.2006. A reference was claimed under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) :- “Whether termination of services of Shri Surqaj Parkash is justified and if not, to what relief he is entitled to? The respondent/workman had raised a demand on 27.11.2001 against the petitioner/management alleging that he was appointed against a regular post C.W.P. No.17258 of 2006 -2- since August, 1998 and his work and conduct was satisfactory, but his services were terminated erroneously on on 1.10.2001 without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He further alleged that the persons junior to him were still working and, therefore, there has been violation of the provisions of Sections 25G and 25H of the Act. The petitioner/management set up a plea that the respondent was not a workman within the definition of the Act and that he was never appointed against a regular post, but was working as a Part Time Sweeper, engaged only when there was exigency of work. It was further pleaded that the workman had abandoned the services. They pleaded that the provisions of the Act were neither attracted, nor violated. It was specifically pleaded that no person junior to the respondent was working with the management. The Tribunal concluded that the petitioner had completed 240 days of service in the 12 months preceding his termination and that there was no material to show that he had abandoned the service. It also concluded that the respondent/workman was not appointed against a regular post, but was working on part time basis. It then concluded that the petitioner was a workman whose services had been terminated in an arbitrary manner and held the respondent/workman entitled to be reinstated along with 50% of the back wages. The question which has been raised herein is as to whether a part time employee like the respondent/workman was entitled to the benefits of the Industrial Disputes Act and whether a part time worker who comes within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act, can also be treated to be a workman within the meaning of the Act, so as to be held entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Act in particular the provisions of Chapter IIA and V.B thereof. The question which has been raised herein was referred to the Full Bench in C.W.P. No.4660 of 1999 and in the admission order, the petition was C.W.P. No.17258 of 2006 -3- ordered to be listed after the decision of the Full Bench. The Full Bench of this Court has since rendered the decision on 22.5.2008 and it has been concluded as under :- “In view of the facts mentioned above, we conclude that a part time worker would fall within the definition of a workman as postulated under Sections 2(s) of the I.D.Act. However, nature of his employment will be that of a contractual employee and employer be at liberty to terminate him and his termination would not entitle him to get any benefit under the provisions of Chapter VA and VB of the I.D.Act. It is further clarified that to enforce rights and obligations arising under contract of employment, may be in writing or oral, the part time worker may invoke the provisions of I.D.Act other than contained in Chapter VA and VB of the Act.” In view of the aforesaid, when there is no dispute that the respondent/workman was working on part time basis and in view of the observations made by the Full Bench as extracted above, I am of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned award deserves to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. (MAHESH GROVER) March 18, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO