IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14731 OF 2009 DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 12, 2010 Ravinder Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS Principal, DAV Centenary Public School, Rohtak ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Dr. Suresh Kumar Redhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has challenged the award passed by Labour Court dated 8.11.2008. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner was appointed as a Carpenter on 3.5.1998 in D.A.V.School, Rohtak. He claims to be appointed on a regular post and his work and conduct remained satisfactory. His services were terminated on 2.6.2001 without assigning any reason. He accordingly sought reference of the dispute on the ground that his termination was in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and since the petitioner had completed 240 days of service during the calendar year, the Management could not legally CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14731 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: terminate his services without complying with the provisions of the abovesaid Act. The Tribunal, however, held that the petitioner- workman was aware that his work was only for a specific period and job was not of a permanent nature. Finding of fact is that his appointment was purely contractual in nature. Accordingly, the Labour Court found that the workman has no legal right to the post. Reference has been made to the case of M.D.Karnataka Handloom Dev. Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Mahadeva Laxman Raval, 2007(2) RSJ 32 (SC). Reference has accordingly been answered against the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that this condition of employment being contractual was arbitrarily and illegally inserted in the appointment letter of the petitioner. Be that as it may, the appointment of the petitioner, as per the record, was contractual. In this background, no case for interference in the view taken by the Labour Court is made out. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. November 12, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE