C.W.P.No.18601 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.18601 of 2001 Date of Decision:- 14.01.2009 Shyam Lal ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Harpreet Singh Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Through this order, I propose to decide C.W.P.Nos.18601 of 2001 (Shyam Lal vs. State of Haryana and others), C.W.P.No.18648 of 2001 (Surinder vs. State of Haryana and others), C.W.P.No.4808 of 2004 (Gian Chand vs. State of Haryana and others), C.W.P.No.4811 of 2004 (Bhaga Ram vs. State of Haryana and others), C.W.P.No.4812 of 2004 (Kala vs. State of Haryana and others) wherein award dated 9.3.2001 has been challenged and C.W.P.No.4807 of 2004 (Satbir vs. State of Haryana and others) wherein challenge is to the award dated 12.3.2001, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, as common questions of facts and law are involved therein. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the C.W.P.No.18601 of 2001 -2- petitioners joined the service of the respondents as Beldars in January, 1988 and their services were terminated on 1.12.1996 without complying with the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ID Act). It is contended that the petitioners having worked for more than 240 days with the respondents preceding the date of their termination, were entitled to the protection under the ID Act. He has been contended that the finding given by the Labour Court with regard to the appointment of the petitioners- workmen being on a particular work/project, is not sustainable as the petitioners have been continuously working from the year 1988 upto their date of termination i.e. 1.12.1996. For this submission, the counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the statement of Devi Dutt Kumbhoj, SDE B&R P-1 Naraingarh, who according to him has admitted that the petitioners were working as labourer-workmen and had been working even before December, 1995 with the respondents. He, on that basis, contends that the findings given by the Labour Court that the petitioners were appointed against a particular project/contract is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside thereby granting them the benefit of reinstatement in service with back wages as per the provisions of the ID Act. He states that this witness has admitted that services of Som Nath and Bisha Ram have been regularized and, therefore, the provisions of Section 25 H and G have not been complied with. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana has argued that the Labour Court has discussed the evidence which has been produced before it and has after considering the pleadings and the evidence, given a well reasoned and well considered award wherein it has C.W.P.No.18601 of 2001 -3- been held that since the services of the petitioners were covered under the definition of 2 (oo) (bb), therefore, the same cannot be termed as “retrenchment” and that being so, the petitioners are not entitled to any benefit under Section 25 F of the ID Act. Counsel for the respondent-State further contends that as no evidence has been produced by the petitioners showing that the provisions of Section 25 G and H have not been complied with and any person junior to them has been retained and in the light of the categoric statement of the Management witnesses that no person junior to the petitioners has been retained nor any person has been employed after the petitioners in the said project, the submission of the counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted on this count as well. I have considered the submissions put-forth by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned awards as well as the statement of Devi Dutt Kumbhoj, SDE B&R P-I Naraingarh, reliance whereof has been made by the counsel for the petitioners. A perusal thereof shows that it stands admitted by the said witness that the petitioners had worked with the respondents on daily wages at different places on muster roll from 1996-98. It has also been admitted that they were not given any appointment letter nor any termination letter was issued to them. What has been contended by the respondents is that they had themselves left the work. Muster Roll Exhibit M-1 to M-12 have been perused. In the cross-examination, it has been admitted by him that even before December, 1995, the petitioners used to work. He has further admitted that Som Nath & Bisha Ram etc. have been regularized. It has further been stated that the petitioners do not fulfill the conditions prescribed for regularization as per the instructions issued by the Haryana Government. In the light of this C.W.P.No.18601 of 2001 -4- statement, it is apparent that the contention of the counsel for the petitioners to the effect that the persons junior to the petitioners have been retained, is not correct nor can it be assumed that Som Nath & Bisha Ram etc. whose services were regularized, were junior to the petitioners and the retention of their services would amount to violation of the provisions of Section 25 G of the ID Act as neither it has been stated by the said witness that they were junior to the petitioners nor any suggestion to that effect had been put to him. That being so, it cannot be held that the persons junior to the petitioners have been retained in service by the respondents rather a categoric statement has come from the witness that nobody has been kept in place of the petitioners and, therefore, the violation of the provisions of Section 25 H also do not come in as alleged by the counsel for the petitioners. It has been categorically stated by the Management-witness, referred to above, that the petitioners have not completed 240 days in any of the years. Now coming to the assertion of the counsel for the petitioners that the appointment of the petitioners is not covered by the provisions of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. A perusal of the evidence so produced on record would show that the petitioners had been appointed for a specific period as mentioned in the Muster Roll produced in evidence as Exhibits M-1 to M-12. As per these Muster Rolls, after the expiry of the period mentioned therein, the services of the petitioners shall stand discontinued as the work on which they were appointed ceased to exist on its completion. This being the position, the appointment of the petitioners shall fall within the provisions as contained in Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the ID Act. As the petitioners were engaged for a specific period as C.W.P.No.18601 of 2001 -5- well as for a specific work, therefore, their appointment falls within the ambit of the provisions as contained in the ID Act. That being so, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in the present writ petitions. A perusal of the impugned awards would show that the learned Labour Court has gone into the details of the evidence so led by the parties before it and has referred to the various judgments covering their case. Counsel for the petitioners has been unable to contradict the legal position as spelt out by the Labour Court in its impugned awards. In my considered view, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned awards which would warrant interference by this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the light of the above, I do not find any merit in these petitions and dismiss the same accordingly. January 14th, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No C.W.P.No.18601 of 2001 -6- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.18648 of 2001 Date of Decision:- 14.01.2009 Surinder ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Harpreet Singh Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) For orders, see separate detailed judgment of even date passed in C.W.P.No.18601 of 2001 (Shyam Lal vs. State of Haryana and others. January 14th, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE C.W.P.No.18601 of 2001 -7- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.4808 of 2004 Date of Decision:- 14.01.2009 Gian Chand ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Harpreet Singh Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) For orders, see separate detailed judgment of even date passed in C.W.P.No.18601 of 2001 (Shyam Lal vs. State of Haryana and others. January 14th, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE C.W.P.No.18601 of 2001 -8- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.4811 of 2004 Date of Decision:- 14.01.2009 Bhaga Ram ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Harpreet Singh Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) For orders, see separate detailed judgment of even date passed in C.W.P.No.18601 of 2001 (Shyam Lal vs. State of Haryana and others. January 14th , 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE C.W.P.No.18601 of 2001 -9- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.4812 of 2004 Date of Decision:- 14.01.2009 Kala ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Harpreet Singh Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) For orders, see separate detailed judgment of even date passed in C.W.P.No.18601 of 2001 (Shyam Lal vs. State of Haryana and others. January 14th , 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE C.W.P.No.18601 of 2001 -10- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.4807 of 2004 Date of Decision:- 14 .01.2009 Satbir ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Harpreet Singh Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) For orders, see separate detailed judgment of even date passed in C.W.P.No.18601 of 2001 (Shyam Lal vs. State of Haryana and others. January 14th, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE