C.W.P. No.1267 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.1267 of 2005 DATE OF DECISION : 18.3.2011 Superintending Engineer, H.S.E.B.Jind PETITIONER VERSUS Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hissar and another --RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri Suvir Sheokand, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner/Management has impugned the award of the Labour Court, Hissar dated 18.10.2004. A reference was claimed under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) :- “Whether the termination of services of Sh.Rajender Singh is legal and in order? If not, to what relief he is entitled to?” The respondent/workman had raised a demand on 21.11.1995 against the petitioner/management alleging that he was appointed as a Mali in November, C.W.P. No.1267 of 2005 -2- 1991 and was illegally removed from service on 12.11.1995 inasmuch as he had completed un-interrupted service of more than four and half years and his work and conduct was satisfactory, but his services were terminated erroneously 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 appointed as a Part Time Mali on four hours duty per day till work and funds were there and that need of his services ceased to exist at the time of his exit. 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 answered the reference in favour of the workman and ordered his reinstatement with continuity in service 50% full back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 21.11.1995. 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 & 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 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 C.W.P. No.1267 of 2005 -3- 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