CWP No.14939 of 2008 [1] THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.14939 of 2008 Date of Decision: 25 – 08 – 2008 Ramesh Masih ....Petitioner v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ....Respondents Gurdaspur and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.G.P.S.Bal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Present writ petition has been preferred by Ramesh Masih praying that impugned award Annexure P-1 passed by the Labour Court be set aside and the petitioner be ordered to be reinstated into service as the Labour Court has gravely erred in awarding Rs.20,000/- as compensation instead of reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. A perusal of the award would show that the petitioner was working on daily wage basis as a casual labourer during the period October, 1992 to February, 1999. The Labour Court has returned the categoric finding that the petitioner was not appointed against the permanent post. Therefore, relying upon Madhya Pradesh Administration v. Tribhuban, (2008)1 SCC (L&S) 264, the Labour Court held that compensation can be granted to the petitioner-workman and ordered that petitioner-workman be paid Rs.20,000/-. We are of the view that the petitioner-workman was not CWP No.14939 of 2008 [2] appointed as per rules and regulations but was a contractual employee on daily wage basis and termination of his services does not amount to retrenchment. He could not be reinstated in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others, (2006)4 SCC 1. We find that the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Samrala v. Raj Kumar, (2006)3 SCC 81 is that unless an employee is appointed as per rules and regulations, his appointment cannot be treated to be consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Appointment given de hors the rules and regulations is liable to be termination and is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act and thus, does not amount to retrenchment. Similarly, in Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Limited, (2007)1 SCC 533, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, (2007)1 SCC 408, Reserve Bank of India v. Gopinath Sharma and another, (2006)6 SCC 221 and UP Power Corporation Ltd. and another v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and others, (2007)5 SCC 755, it has been held that reinstatement of a workman in public employment will not be consistent with Article 14 unless a workman had been appointed by following rules and regulations. We are of the view that the impugned award is just, appropriate and suffers from no infirmity. Therefore, no interference is called for. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) JUDGE JUDGE August 25, 2008. RC