IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12640 of 2008 Date of decision: 30.11.2009 Suresh Kumar ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Pankaj Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers 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. A workman under Haryana Agro Industries Corporation complained of illegal termination, as having been made without compliance of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, on the basis that he had completed 240 days of continuous service prior to the order of termination on August, 2003. The contention of the workman was that he had been employed since 2001. The management had denied completely the relationship of master and servant but in evidence it was brought out through records that the workman had completed 240 days of service during the period from September 2002 to August 2003. The Labour Court however did not grant reinstatement although it was admitted in evidence that the workman was not paid the compensation as Civil Writ Petition No.12640 of 2008 - 2 - prescribed under law, on a reasoning that the services of the workman were terminated under circumstances that qualified for the exception to the term 'retrenchment' provided under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. The attack against the award of the Labour Court was that the management had pleaded a complete absence of master and servant relationship and the Labour Court was not justified in terming the employment of the workman as resulting from a contract for a specified period or to do a particular work. The Labour Court relied on decisions which are totally inconsequential and appears to have been swayed under the belief that all daily rated workers must only be treated as persons who are not entitled to any notice and that the services could be terminated at any time. The Industrial Disputes Act itself makes no distinction between a daily rated worker or any other class of persons and notice under Section 25-F and a compensation that is payable thereunder is unexceptional except in cases where the termination itself will not operate as retrenchment under specific circumstances mentioned in the exceptions provided under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The award of the Labour Court is erroneous and the workman is entitled to reinstatement. Having regard to the fact that the workman had not been in employment of all these years and the nature of engagement being such that he could have always gained himself some alternative employment, I deem it appropriate to restrict his claim to back wages to 50% only. 3. The award of the Labour Court is, under the circumstances, Civil Writ Petition No.12640 of 2008 - 3 - set aside and the workman is directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and back wages restricted to 50%. 4. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be however no directions as to costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 30.11.2009 sanjeev