IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4059 of 2008 Date of decision : 29th August, 2008 District Education Officer, Bhiwani and another … Petitioners Versus Dipaty and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present : Mr. S.K. Hooda, DAG Haryana for the petitioners. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Present writ petition has been preferred by District Education Officer, Bhiwani (hereinafter called the ‘management’) and Head Master, Government High School, Village Garanpura, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani against Sh.Dipaty (hereinafter called the ‘workman’) and Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak. Petitioner- management has prayed that award dated 21.09.2007 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Labour Court, Rohtak be set aside. A short point for consideration before us is that respondent- workman, who was employed as a part-time Water Career-cum-Gardner, can be construed to be workman under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) or not and if so, he is Civil Writ Petition 4059 of 2008 entitled to retrenchment compensation or not. In the demand notice sent by the respondent-workman, in para 1, he has stated as under: “1. That I was appointed on 13.04.1998 as Part Time Water Carrier Cum Gardner (Kahar-Cum-Mali) and was posted as such at Govt. High School, Garanpura (Bhiwani). My work and conduct remained satisfactory during my long service tenure.” Therefore, it is admitted position that the workman was employed as a part-time Water Career-cum-Gardner. Learned Labour Court, after examining the evidence, held that it is clearly established that the workman has worked for more than 240 days and his services could not be terminated without compliance of Section 25-F of the Act. Therefore, the Labour Court concluded as under: “In view of my finding on the foregoing issues, it is held that service of the workman has been terminated illegally. Therefore, the termination order is hereby set aside and he is entitled to be re-instated on his previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 24.03.2003. Hence, I decide this reference in favour of the workman and against the mgt. Award is hereby passed accordingly. File be consigned to record room.” The view taken by the Labour Court is not tenable. Hon'ble Apex Court, in Uttranchal Forest Hospital Trust v. Dinesh Kumar (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 542 held that part-time worker is not entitled to retrenchment compensation. This view has also been reiterated by a Full Bench of this Court in Gobind v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar and another in CWP No. 4660 of 1999 decided on 22nd May, 2008, wherein it has been held as under: 2 Civil Writ Petition 4059 of 2008 “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(a) 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.” In view of the authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court and the view taken by a Full Bench of this Court in Gobind’s case (supra), we have no other option except to allow the present writ petition and set aside the impugned award. Accordingly, present writ petition is allowed and impugned award is set aside. [HEMANT GUPTA] JUDGE [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 29, 2008. rps 3