Civil Writ Petition No. 6772 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 6772 of 2008 Date of Decision: 25.4.2008 Dharam Pal …Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Bura, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. The present writ petition has been filed by workman assailing the impugned award dated 23.11.2007 (Annexure P1) passed by learned Labour Court who, relying upon the mandate of law laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Uma Devi and Others (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1, held that workman is not entitled to reinstatement/regularization. The workman has claimed in demand notice that he joined services of respondent-Management in the month of May 1997 as Peon Civil Writ Petition No. 6772 of 2008 2 (Class-IV Post)a and his case for regularization was forwarded on 22.1.2001. He filed Civil Writ Petition No. 13213 of 2002, which was decided on 21.8.2002 directing the respondent-Management to decide legal notice. Legal notice was rejected on 16.10.2002 by the respondent-Management on the ground that he was engaged on contract basis from time to time and was paid the wages as fixed by the Deputy Commissioner and since he was not appointed against the regular post, his services cannot be regularised. Even though workman has completed 240 days during the preceding 12 calendar months before his retrenchment on 1.6.2002. He cannot be regularized as his name was not sponsored through Employment Exchange or was not in pursuance of public advertisement issued. It is well settled that in public employment equal opportunity is to be afforded to all and services of petitioner cannot be allowed to be regularised through back door entry. We have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. We find that the view taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Samrala v. Raj Kumar (2006) 3 Supreme Court Cases 81 is that unless an employee is appointed as per rules and regulations, his appointment cannot be treated to be consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Appointment given de hors the rules and regulations is liable to termination and is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and thus, does not amount to retrenchment. Similarly, in Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Limited (2007)1 Supreme Court Cases 533, Indian Drugs & Civil Writ Petition No. 6772 of 2008 3 Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen (2007)1 Supreme Court Cases 408, Reserve Bank of India v. Gopinath Sharma and another (2006) 6 supreme Court Cases 221 and U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Another v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and Others (2007) 5 Supreme Court Cases 755, it has been held that reinstatement of a workman in public employment will not be consistent with Article 14 unless a workman had been appointed by following rules and regulations. Consequently, we find no infirmity in the award dated 23.11.2007 (Annexure P1) and the same cannot be set aside. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge (Ashutosh Mohunta) Judge April 25, 2008 “DK”