Civil Writ Petition No.1053 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Civil Writ Petition No.1053 of 1989 Date of Decision:17.12.2008 Kishan Lal .....Petitioner Vs. The Municipal Committee, Panipat and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Ramesh Goyat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarunveer Vashisth, Addl. AG, Haryana for respondent No.2. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Kishan Lal under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned award dated 18.11.1988 Annexure P.1. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was employed with the Municipal Committee, Panipat- respondent since 1970. His services were terminated with effect from 16.10.1978. On being raised an industrial dispute, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala vide the impugned award dated 18.11.1988 held that the termination of services of the workman was justified and in order. That this award is liable to be quashed as per the reasons embodied in this petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides Civil Writ Petition No.1053 of 1989 -2- perusing the findings returned by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court with due care and circumspection. Mr. Ramesh Goyal, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner urged with great eloquence that the petitioner though a workman was neither given retrenchment notice, nor compensation in lieu of his retrenchment albeit he had completed a service of 240 days in one year preceding the date of his termination. He had also worked from 29.12.1977 to 28.3.1978 and from 7.4.1978 to 16.10.1978. If his total service is counted during one year preceding his termination, it works out that he had completed more than 280 days' service. He further argued that admittedly two persons had been appointed after termination of his services in utter violation of the provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, `the Act'). In these premises, the impugned award is liable to be quashed. To tide over these submissions, Mr. Vashisth canvassed at the bar that as a matter of fact, the petitioner was employed on three months' basis and again, he was given employment due to the suspension of one Vinod Kumar, thus he does not fall within the definition of workman. I have well considered the rival contentions. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, after holding discussion came to the conclusion that “the appointment of the workman had always been on temporary basis and for specified period and due to the vacancy caused by the suspension of one official or the other. The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable to the case in hand. It is held thus that the workman has not been able to prove that his impugned termination was invalid.” These findings being in consonance with the record, no ground is Civil Writ Petition No.1053 of 1989 -3- made out to interfere in the impugned award in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Sequelly, this petition is dismissed. December 17, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? No