C.W.P No.2307 of 1993 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.2307 of 1993 Date of Decision: 21.07.2009 General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Rohtak .....Petitioner Versus Krishan Lal and another ....Respondents Present: Ms. Deepinder Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kartar Singh, AAG, Haryana. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The Haryana Roadways, which is aggrieved by the order directing reinstatement of the workman by the award of the Labour Court, is the petitioner before this Court challenging the award under Article 226 of the Consitution of India. 2. The admitted case of the workman was that he had been employed as a Helper on daily wages in the Haryana Roadways. He was employed during various periods namely 13.05.1984 to 08.11.1984, 09.11.1984 to 31.01.1985 and from 18.05.1985 to 30.09.1986 but ultimately he was terminated from service when his conduct was found to be reprehensible having turned up to the work place under influence of liquor. A report had also been given to the General Manager for information and the workman had been sent to C.W.P No.2307 of 1993 -2- the police station for appropriate action. 3. The further allegation was that on 29.09.1986, under the influence of liquor, he abused the officials and from the following day from 30.09.1986, he had not been given any employment. That gave rise to the dispute which had been referred to the Labour Court and the Labour Court held that at the relevant time when the termination of service was effected, he had completed only 218 days but still the Labour Court held that he had been removed from service only in order to see that he did not complete 240 days. The removal was characterized by the Labour Court as an unfair labour practice and directed reinstatement with all benefits of service. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the crucial requirement of having worked for a continuous period of 240 days prior to the termination was not there and therefore, the termination should not have been termed to be in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court had committed mistake in taking the various periods of service in the previous years as entitling him to any continuity of service, when actually his engagement had been only on ad hoc basis. There was no ground again to make a special pleading on favour of the workman in the manner the Labour Court had done by saying that the termination of service was in anticipation of a possible accrual of right if he had completed 240 days. To infer unfair labour practice, there ought to have been a persistent conduct of a management that showed that it had caused deliberate breaks in service only to prevent a workman from completing 240 days. The various intervals during which the C.W.P No.2307 of 1993 -3- workman had worked do not go to suggest that any deliberate act on the part of management to prevent him from completing 240 days was practised. The earlier spells during the employment between the year 1984-85 merely show that he had been in employment for one or two months at a stretch but never for any length of period proximating to 240 days to make an inference that the management was adopting a deliberate unfair labour practice. 5. If the workman had not completed 240 days and when the inference of unfair labour practice cannot be made, in the given set of facts there was no scope for complaint of termination of service especially when he was a daily wager. He was not entitled to the benefits of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 6. It has again come by authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court that in the manner of public appointments, there cannot be regularization or reinstatement of daily-rated workers and the Labour Court was, therefore, not justified in directing reinstatement to such daily-rated worker who had no right to the post under any Service Rules or Regulations. 7. The order of the Labour Court is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 21, 2009 Pankaj*