IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 4662 of 1994 Date of Decision: 10.2.2010. Subhash Chander --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner was engaged as a water carrier in March, 1980. He filed this petition seeking a direction to regularize him on the basis of the Govt. Policy of the State of Haryana (Annexure P-1), which inter alia provides for regularization of service of the daily wager employees, who have completed 5 years of service and were in service as on 31.3.1993. The petitioner has also mentioned a number of persons, who are working as daily wagers and labour-cum-helper and have been regularized by the State. The details are contained in para 8 of the petition. In the reply filed by the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner was employed on daily wages, part time basis and was working at Sales Tax Check Barrier, Sohna as Water Carrier. It is further stated that the Sales Tax Check Barriers were later abolished by the State of Haryana and the services of the petitioner are no more required. As far the right of the part time employees is concerned, a Full Bench of this Court in a judgement passed in CWP No. 4660 of 1999 of has held as under:- CWP. No. 4662 of 1994 -2- “ In view of facts mentioned above, we can safely say that a part time worker, who works only for a part of the day, will not be in a position to complete even fictional year as envisaged under Section 25-B of the I.D. Act i.e. 240 days in 12 months preceding the relevant date. Not only this, we feel that it will be very difficult to give any benefit to a part time worker under Chapter VA and VB of the I.D. Act. As in the present case, the petitioner was working only for two hours in a day with the respondent-employer, there is no restriction and he can work with any number of employers, during rest of the day. As per established law, as discussed in earlier part of the judgment, an employee can be asked to work only for 48 hours in a week i.e. 8/9 hours in a day. For the sake of discussion, if we presume that a part time worker, who works only for two hours with one employer, after working with four employers, engaged himself with the 5th and 6th employer for the work and if 5th and 6th employers terminate his service, it will not be possible for the Labour Court to reinstate him in service because with those employers, he was working beyond the period prescribed. Furthermore, as per provisions of Factories Act and 1950 rules, an employee is entitled to get extra wages if he works beyond the number of hours prescribed in a day. When a part time worker engages himself beyond the period of 8/9 hours in a day, from that employer at what rate he will get the wages, whether at the normal rate or at the rate which is fixed for working over time. We have also noticed that a part time worker can get employment with as many number of employers as he wishes to. He can even work with those employers who are competing with each other. In the case of appointment of a part time worker, concept of exclusive employment, which is the most important ingredient in case of a CWP. No. 4662 of 1994 -3- regular employee, is completely missing. In view of facts mentioned above, we conclude that a part time worker would fall within the definition of a workman as postulated under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. However, nature of his employment will be that of a contractual employee and employer be at liberty to terminate him and his termination would not entitle him to get any benefit under the provisions of Chapter VA and VB of the I.D. Act. It is further clarified that to enforce rights and obligations arising under contract of employment, may be in writing or oral, the part time worker may invoke the provisions of I.D. Act other than contained in Chapter VA and VB of the Act.” Thus, no right is created in the petitioner to seek regularization. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite best efforts, he has not been able to contact his client and he is not aware whether the petitioner is still in service or has already been regularized. It is, thus, made clear that if, the petitioner has already been regularized and is still in service or has retired on attaining the age of superannuation, this judgement will not effect his right as such. Petition disposed of. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 10.2.2010. lucky