CWP No.6048 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: CWP No.6048 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: April 10, 2008 GANGA RAM ...PETITIONER VERSUS PRESIDING OFFICER & ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. PRESENT: MR. T.C. DHANWAL, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved by the award (Annexure P-11) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar dated 24.7.2007 (Annexure P-11) vide which the reference was answered against the workman. The petitioner was appointed as part-time Gardener on 1.10.1995 at 220 Kv. Sub Station situated at Industrial Area, Bye-Pass, Hisar. He continued to work as a part-time gardener upto 1.4.2001, when his services were orally terminated. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the workman had worked for more than 240 days, therefore, he is entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages and continuity of service. A perusal of the impugned award shows that as the petitioner was working as a part-time worker, therefore, a part-time worker engaged for a specific purpose and for a fixed period or as a stop gap arrangement cannot be included in the definition of workman. The Hon'ble Supreme CWP No.6048 of 2008 -2- Court in Uttranchal Forest Hospital Trust vs. Dinesh Kumar, reported as 2008(1) SLR 722, has held that there is a basic difference between a person who is engaged as part-time basis and one who is engaged as a daily wager on regular basis. Apart from the above, this Court in State of Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh and another in CWP No.4550 of 2006, decided on 6.11.2007, has held as under:- “We are of the view that the workman having been appointed only on daily wages, without following any procedure, could not be reinstated into service, in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme 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.” Resultantly, we find no infirmity in the impugned award passed by the Labour Court the accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE April 10, 2008 (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) Gulati JUDGE