CWP No.8450 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: CWP No.8450 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: May 20, 2008 SHREE CHAND ...PETITIONER VERSUS PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT-II ...RESPONDENTS FARIDABAD AND ANR. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. PRESENT: MR. AMIT GOYAL, ADVOCATE FOR MR. R.M. SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) The petitioner has impugned the award dated 27.4.2007 (Annexure P-1), vide which the reference has been answered against the petitioner-workman. The petitioner was working as a casual labourer on daily wage basis with the respondents. On 4.9.1996, his services were terminated. Thereafter the petitioner did not work. The Labour Court has returned a finding of fact that the petitioner has worked only for a period of 237 days. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days and as the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are not followed, hence the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service. We are of the view that the workman having been appointed only on daily wages, without following any procedure, could not be reinstated in service, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme CWP No.8450 of 2008 -2- Court in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Workmen, (2007) 1 SCC 408, Reserve Bank of India vs. Gopinath Sharma and another, (2006) 6 SCC 221 and U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and another vs. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and others, (2007) 5 SCC 755. Moreover, appointment on daily wages being terminable as per contract, the case will fall under Clause (bb) to Section 2(oo) of the Act and termination will not amount to retrenchment as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Samrala vs. Raj Kumar, (2006) 3 SCC 81. In the present case, as the petitioner was working on daily wage basis as work-charged employee and he was not employed through Employment Exchange or in pursuance to any advertisement, hence the petitioner is not entitled to be reinstated in service. In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE May 20, 2008 (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) Gulati JUDGE