CWP No.5997 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.5997 of 1990 DATE OF DECISION: March 8, 2010 BHARAT BHUSHAN ...PETITIONER VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. PRESENT: NONE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. SANDEEP MOUDGIL, DAG, PUNJAB. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 19.4.1988 (Annexure P-3), vide which representation of the petitioner for referring the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court was not found fit for reference. The petitioner was an employee of respondent No.2, General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Nawanshahar and was appointed on 20.8.1985 as Cleaner at the rate fixed by the D.C. Jalandhar. The services of the petitioner were retrenched by respondent No.2 and payment of compensation, as required under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, was made to the petitioner. An appeal was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed by the Divisional Manager (Appellate Authority), Transport Department, Jalandhar vide order Annexure R-2/2 wherein it was held that as the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act with regard to the conditions of payment of compensation in case of a retrenched employee CWP No.5997 of 1990 -2- have been duly complied with, hence there is no merit in the appeal. The petitioner has prayed that as he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, hence his dispute is liable to be referred to the Labour Court. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been averred that the petitioner was employed on daily wage basis and was paid salary as per the D.C. Rates. The services of the petitioner were no longer required and hence he was retrenched after payment of due compensation which has already been received by the petitioner. I have gone through the petition and heard the counsel for the respondents. I am of the considered opinion that before terminating the services of the petitioner, retrenchment compensation was paid to him, as is clear from the reply as well as the order Annexure R-2/2. Apart from the above, the petitioner was employed on daily wage basis and hence having received the retrenchment compensation, he is not entitled to claim a reference before the Labour Court. Resultantly, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. March 8, 2010 (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) Gulati JUDGE