IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA 3210 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : JANUARY 11, 2008 SATBIR SINGH ....... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. VD Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. AJAI LAMBA, J. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Satbir Singh, who in the suit claimed declaration to the effect that he was entitled to regularisation in view of the instructions of the Government of Haryana issued in the years 1996 and 2003 with full back-wages and continuity of service. The suit was dismissed and the first appellate court affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. The claim of the appellant was based on the fact that he was employed as a daily paid labourer in Binjal Nursery under the Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Karnal. His services were orally terminated by the department without any notice and pay in lieu of notice period. The RSA 3210 of 2007 2 instructions issued by the State from time to time entitled the appellant to regularisation. It was also pleaded that an industrial dispute was raised which was decided in favour of the appellant wherein he was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back-wages. A petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, had also been filed wherein the Commissioner had awarded an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- as the plaintiff had sustained injuries on his left leg by a Kassi blow and remained under treatment. He could not recover completely and his left leg below the knee had to be amputated resulting in 55% permanent disability. The claim was opposed while contending that the case of the plaintiff could not be covered under the regularisation policy as he was a seasonal worker. He had not completed 240 days in any calendar year and had, in fact, worked for only two months in the year 1997. With regard to the injury, a sum of Rs.2,16,070/- had been deposited before the authority under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The first appellate court, while referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others, JT 2006(4) SC 420, and other judgments on the issue, dismissed the appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any law to the contrary. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to establish that the entry of the appellant in service was legal and in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The relief of regularisation, in view of the nature of appointment of the appellant, RSA 3210 of 2007 3 could not be allowed in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Municipal Council, Samrala v. Raj Kumar, (2006) 3 SCC 81, Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Limited, (2007) 1 SCC 533, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, (2007) 1 SCC 408, Reserve Bank of India v. Gopinath Sharma and another, (2006) 6 SCC 221 and UP Power Corporation Ltd. and another v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and others, (2007) 5 SCC 755. No substantial question of law arises so as to interfere in this Regular Second Appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. January 11, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) JUDGE