C.W.P.No.5632 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.5632 of 2008 Date of Decision: 04.04.2008. Satish Kumar .......Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr.G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. The present writ petition has been filed by Satish Kumar praying that the award dated 22.05.2002 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Labour Court, Ambala be quashed. The petitioner-workman on 24.09.1998 served a demand notice (Annexure P-1) wherein it is stated that he was employed as daily wager in the year 1987 and his services were terminated in June 1993 by the respondent-Management. He had made two grievances. One that even though he completed 240 days in the last 12 preceding months, provisions of Section 25-F had not complied with and secondly, his juniors were retained in service and thereby Section 25-G of the Act was violated. Averments in demand notice (Annexure P-1) were reiterated in the claim statement. C.W.P.No.5632 of 2008 2 In reply to the demand notice, the respondent-Management took the preliminary objection that the claim made by the petitioner- workman has become stale. He has not completed 240 days and he himself remained absent and had abandoned the service. In award Annexure P-5, the learned Labour Court held that the claim of the petitioner has been rendered stale as the same has been instituted after six years. The learned Labour Court has returned finding of fact that the petitioner-workman has not completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months. It has been further held that there is abandonment of the job on the part of the petitioner-workman as institution of a belated demand notice justify the inference that the petitioner-workman had himself abandoned the job. Furthermore, the learned Labour Court held that since the petitioner-workman was a daily wager, his name was not requisitioned through the Employment Exchange. There was no advertisement issued, therefore, he cannot be allowed back-door entry in the public employment. We find no infirmity in the award (Annexure P-5). We have considered the pleadings in the writ petition and submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 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 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 C.W.P.No.5632 of 2008 3 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. In view of the above, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE April 04, 2008 ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) seema JUDGE