IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 349 of 2009. Date of Decision : January 14, 2009. Vikram Singh ..... Petitioner. Versus. State of Haryana and others .... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. S.N. Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the award dated 12.09.2008 (Annexure-P-2), vide which the reference made before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Gurgaon, has been answered against the workman holding therein that the workman cannot be reinstated in service on the ground that his appointment was not in consonance with the statutory rules and was a purely adhoc contractual based appointment for a limited period. On expiry of the said period the right to remain on post comes to an end. Counsel for the petitioner to that extend is unable to convince me that the appointment was of not of such a nature as held by the Labour Court but rather concedes this. However, he contends that in the case of similarly placed employees who were similarly appointed and their services were terminated raised a dispute and the Labour Court vide award dated 08.04.2004 in the case of Sanjay reinstated him with all consequential benefits with 50% back wages. The said award was challenged by the respondent in this High C.W.P. No. 349 of 2009. Court which was dismissed by this Court and the S.L.P. Preferred by the respondents also met the same fate. On this ground, he submits that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India have been violated as far as the claim of the petitioner qua the other similarly placed employee who were similarly terminated and reinstated and were governed by the same terms and conditions of service as in the case of the petitioner. A similar award having attained finality, the petitioner should also have been granted the same benefit as has been granted to the similarly situated employees. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions put forth by counsel for the petitioner. The award which was passed in the case of similarly situated employee Sanjay, has been placed on record as Annexure-P-3. It appears to be an attractive submission as put forth by counsel for the petitioner, however, the decision which has attained finality would be in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that very case and would thus be a Judgment in personum which cannot be said to be applicable for all cases which are subsequently decided by the Labour Court. The award passed by the Labour Court is based on the Judgements of this Court and Hon'ble the Supreme Court as prevalent now, which have been rightly applied to the given facts and circumstances of the present case and therefore, I do not see any reason to take a view which is not in consonance with the order passed by the Labour Court. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the award of the Labour Court is based on the Judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court primarily in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Versus Uma Devi, 2006(4) S.C.C. 1. He submits that subsequently Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board Versus Pooran Chandra -2- C.W.P. No. 349 of 2009. Panday and others, 2008(1) R.S.J. 304, has held that the Judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (supra) cannot be applied mechanically without seeing the facts of a particular case, as a little difference in facts can make Uma Devi's case inapplicable to the facts of the case. On this basis, counsel for the petitioner submits that this case is distinguishable and the Judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the light of the fact that the petitioner was appointed on purely adhoc basis which was a contractual appointment, the submission of counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as has been held by the Labour Court in its finding. Counsel for the petitioner further states that even if the petitioner could not have been reinstated in service but for the period he had worked with the respondents, he was entitled to compensation which was also not granted to the petitioner. In the light of the fact that the petitioner was appointed on April, 1995 and the services were terminated in September, 1997, and in the light of the fact that the petitioner has worked for a very short period and the petitioner was appointed on contract basis, I do not see any justification for granting this prayer as put forth by counsel for the petitioner. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 14,2009. sjks. Whether refer to Reporters : Yes / No. -3-