CWP No.13903 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: CWP No.13903 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION: April 21, 2008 THE DIRECTOR SECONDARY EDUCATION ...PETITIONERS HARYANA, CHANDIGARH & OTHERS VERSUS SH. ROSHAN LAL AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. PRESENT: MR. SUNIL NEHRA, AAG, HARYANA FOR THE PETITIONERS. MR. B.R VOHRA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the impugned award dated 10.4.2006, passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Rohtak, vide which termination of the services of the respondent-workman was held to be illegal and he was ordered to be reinstated on his previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice. The workman Roshan Lal was engaged as a part-time water carrier for 2½ hours daily and he joined his duty at Government High School, Ghuskani, District Bhiwani on 4.11.1996. The services of the workman were terminated on 31.12.2001. The workman raised an industrial dispute with a demand notice on 3.6.2002. The conciliation proceedings failed, therefore, the matter was referred to the Labour Court to decide CWP No.13903 of 2006 -2- whether the termination of services of Roshan Lal were justified or not? Before the Labour Court, the plea raised by the workman was that he had worked continuously from 4.11.1996 upto 31.12.2001, as a water carrier. It was, however, admitted by him that he had worked on part- time basis for a period of 2½ hours everyday. It was contended on behalf of the workman that he has rendered more than 240 days of continuous service with the Management, therefore, termination of his services without following the procedure as laid down in the Industrial Disputes Act is wholly illegal and he is liable to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. On behalf of the Management, Sh. Ramesh, Headmaster, Government High School, Ghuskani appeared as MW1 and stated that the workman was working as part-time water carrier and therefore, he does not fall within the definition of the workman. It was further stated that the workman was relieved on 31.3.2001 and not on 31.12.2001, as alleged by the workman. The Labour Court held that a part-time worker also falls within the definition of workman in view of the decision in RSJ 1997 (1) 396 (P&H HC). On the basis of the above, it was held that as the workman had worked from 4.11.1996 upto 31.12.2001, and his services were terminated without issuance of any notice or any compensation of retrenchment hence, the orders of termination were liable to be set aside. It was held by the Labour Court that no compensation of retrenchment was paid to the petitioner and hence on this count also the services of the workman were terminated illegally and resultantly, the Labour Court ordered the reinstatement of workman with continuity of service and 50% back wages. CWP No.13903 of 2006 -3- Counsel for the petitioner has contended that a daily wager or a part-timer who is engaged on an hourly basis cannot be termed as workman and hence the award of the Labour Court is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel has relied on a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uttranchal Forest Hospital Trust vs. Dinesh Kumar, reported as 2008(1) SLR 722, wherein 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, Ghuskani. The workman has also stated that he used to work for 2½ hours everyday. In such a situation the respondent-workman cannot be termed as workman and hence the orders ordering his reinstatement with continuity of service with 50% back wages are liable to be set aside. In view of the aforementioned discussion, we allow the writ petition and set aside the award (Annexure P-7), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court, Rohtak. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE April 21, 2008 (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) Gulati JUDGE