IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 3472 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 19-3-2009 Sukh Pal … Appellant versus Haryana State through Collector,Gurgaon, District Gurgaon and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Ms. Preeti Khanna, Advocate, for the appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: This is plaintiff's second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court whereby on acceptance of appeal of the defendants, the judgment and decree of the trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, has been set aside. As per case set out in the plaint, the plaintiff was working as Mali-cum-Chowkidar since 1.4.1994 and having worked for a continuous period of 502 days was entitled to be regularized as such but the defendants instead of doing so, threatened to terminate his services on one pretext or the other and ultimately, issued letter No. 1556 dated 26.5.1998 to the plaintiff for termination of his services on the ground of absence from duty. Hence, the suit was filed challenging the said action of the defendants. Upon notice, defendants filed written statement taking the plea that the plaintiff was engaged on daily wages basis from time to time but due to his non-satisfactory work, his services were dispensed with and on expiry of notice/memo. period , the plaintiff was asked to collect compensation and wages upto 6.7.1998 under Clause 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Trial Court on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, vide judgment and decree dated 27.3.2008, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and set aside the letter No. 1556 dated 26.5.1998 being illegal and restrained the defendants from terminating his services except in due R.S.A. No. 3472 of 2008 -2- course of law and that in the alternative if during the pendency, the defendants had succeeded in terminating his services, the same should be restored from the date of termination with all back-wages. However, on an appeal preferred by the defendants, the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been set aside by the first appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 28.8.2008 and consequently, the suit of the plaintiff dismissed. This is how the present second appeal is by the plaintiff. First appellate Court while reversing the finding of the trial Court has noticed in its judgment that the plaintiff was engaged on daily wages with effect from 1.4.1994 and his services were terminated after giving one month's notice on 26.5.1998 vide letter No. 1556. The learned first appellate Court, while adjudicating upon the question as to whether the plaintiff had acquired a right to be regularized simply on the ground of his having continuously worked as a daily wager for 502 days, answered the same in negative. For this, reliance has been placed upon a judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others, AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1806, wherein in para 38 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “ When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in concerned cases, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that R.S.A. No. 3472 of 2008 -3- the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post.” Accordingly, the first appellate Court held that the plaintiff being a daily wager, even though he had put in around more than 500 days of continuous service, had no right to be regularized and if he had been removed from services after giving one month's notice, the same was just and legal. In my view, the finding arrived at by the first appellate Court thereby reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court is correct in law and thus, calls for no interference by this Court in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial, arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed. ( ARVIND KUMAR ) March 19, 2009 JUDGE JS