CWP No.2931 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: CWP No.2931 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION: May 28, 2008 STATE OF HARYANA ...PETITIONER VERSUS RAJESH KUMAR & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. PRESENT: MR. SUNIL NEHRA, AAG, HARYANA, FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. V.S. BHARDWAJ, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. The State of Haryana has filed this writ petition challenging the award (Annexure P-6) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak dated 6.10.2005, wherein it was held that services of the workman were terminated illegally and consequently he was held entitled to be reinstated on his previous post with continuity of service without any back wages. Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent-workman was appointed as Water Carrier by the Management on 6.11.1996, on part- time basis. On 31.3.2000, his services were terminated being no longer required. The workman raised an industrial dispute which was refered to the Labour Court. The workman raised a plea that as he had worked continuously from 6.11.1996 upto 31.3.2000, in Government High School, Dhirana, district Bhiwani, i.e. for more than 240 days in one calendar year, therefore, the termination of his service is in contravention of the provisions of Section 25-F, Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, as neither any notice was served upon him nor the compensation of CWP No.2931 of 2006 -2- retrenchment was paid to him by the Management. The plea raised by the Management was that the workman was appointed as part-time water carrier vide order dated 4.11.1996 and he joined his duties on 6.11.1996 and worked continuously upto 31.3.2000, when his services were terminated. It was argued that a water carrier who was engaged on part-time basis for a period of 2½ hours daily is not covered by the definition of 'Workman' and hence his services could be dispensed with at any time. It was further submitted on behalf of the Management that no provision of the Industrial Disputes Act has been violated. The Labour Court held that as no notice was served upon the workman and no pay or retrenchment compensation was paid to him, therefore, there has been a contravention of provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was also held that the workman had worked for 240 days and hence he is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service. Counsel for the Management has vehemently urged that the workman was engaged on part-time basis as a water carrier for 2½ hours daily. It was submitted that services of the workman were terminated by the competent authority in compliance of the instructions issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana vide memo dated 24.12.1999, in which it was clearly mentioned that “No appointment of class-IV part-time employee will be admissible/permissible except Part-Time Sweeper only”, whereas respondent No.1 was working as part-time water carrier. It has further been submitted by the State counsel that the appointment of the workman on part-time basis was a stop-gap arrangement so that the institution could run properly. It has lastly been argued that a part-time CWP No.2931 of 2006 -3- employee has neither any right to hold the post nor any lien in this respect. The arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner have been controverted by the counsel appearing for the respondent-workman. It has been argued that a part-timer who is working for more than 240 days in a calendar year for a number of years would be entitled to reinstatement, if the provisions of Section 25-F, Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act are not followed and hence the award of the Labour Court is liable to be upheld. We have heard counsel for the parties at length. A daily wager or a part-timer who is engaged on hourly basis cannot be termed as a 'Workman'. In Uttranchal Forest Hospital Trust vs. Dinesh Kumar, reported as 2008(1) SLR 722, the order of reinstatement of workman was held to be unjustified as the workman was working as a part-timer. In the present case also the workman has himself admitted that he was engaged on part-time basis as a Water Carrier in Government High School, Dhirana, district Bhiwani. The workman has also stated that he used to work for 2½ hours everyday. In such a situation, the respondent cannot be termed as a workman and hence the orders ordering his reinstatement with continuity of service are liable to be set aside. In view of the aforementioned discussion, we allow the writ petition and set aside the award (Annexure P-6), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak dated 6.10.2005. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE May 28, 2008 (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) Gulati JUDGE