CWP NO.223 OF 1988 :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 03.11.2008 Ajmer Singh and others ...Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Balbir Singh, Advocate for petitioners Mr.S.S.Sahu, AAG, Punjab for respondents Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The petitioners were engaged as Chowkidars on daily wages basis between 1.6.1984 to 23.4.1986 on the dates mentioned in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. Vide order dated 30.12.1987 (Annexure P-1), services of the petitioners were terminated w.e.f. 30.12.1987 A.N. on the ground that there is no work with the respondents. The petitioners accordingly filed the present writ petition challenging the order (Annexure P-1) terminating their services on the ground that the same is violative of Sections 25-F and CWP NO.223 OF 1988 :2: 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioners accordingly seek a direction for reinstatement in service and treating them as regular employees having completed 240 days of continuous service before their retrenchment. On this petition being filed, initially, interlocutory order granting stay was passed on 1.8.1988. However, subsequently, the interim stay was modified and consequently, the petitioners stood terminated in the year 1988. In the reply filed by the respondents, it is stated that the daily wagers- Chowkidars i.e. the petitioners became surplus for want of any work and on the basis of the seniority, the services of junior most Chowkidars have been dispensed with. It is stated that while terminating the services of the petitioners, the principle of “Last come, First go” has been adopted. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is admitted position that the petitioners' engagement was on daily wage basis. Their services were dispensed with for want of any work and by adopting the principle of “Last come, First go” as they were junior most, as per the specific reply filed in this regard. Though initially, there was an interim order, however, subsequently, the same was modified and services of the petitioners stand dispensed with. Under the given circumstances, the termination of the petitioners cannot be said to be bad in law. Petitioners has also sought for regularization of their services. No such relief can be granted as the petitioners are out of service since 1988 i.e. more than 20 years. Otherwise CWP NO.223 OF 1988 :3: also, the law regarding regularization is well settled in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi Secretary State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1. In view of the above circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. I find no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 03.11.2008 MFK