RSA No. 1418 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1418 of 2005 Decided on : 26-02-2009 Davinder Singh and others ....Appellants VERSUS PSEB through its Chairman at Patiala and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. B.S.Taunque, Advocate for the respondents. MAHESH GROVER, J This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Trial Court dated 30.8.2003 and that of the First Appellate Court dated 11.1.2005. The plaintiffs-appellants filed a suit for declaration to the effect that order of termination passed on 13.2.1995 vide which their services were terminated and which is on record as Ex. P-2, is illegal, null and void. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs- appellants were working as daily wage workers with the Punjab State Electricity Board which issued a policy on 23.1.1989 wherein it was stipulated that all the daily wage workers who have put in 500 days of work as on 31.3.1988 will be treated as work charged employees. The policy was revised further on 15.9.1991 and the date for consideration of 500 days was extended upto 30.9.1988. On the strength of these instructions, an order was passed on 13.2.1990 (Ex. P-1) whereby plaintiffs were treated as work charged employees. A complaint was however made that number of persons had been treated as work charged employees fraudulently as they RSA No. 1418 of 2005 2 had either not completed 500 days or were not working at all. An inquiry was held and the irregularities as alleged in the complaint were established leading to the termination of the plaintiffs-appellants vide order dated 13.2.1995. The reason given for termination of the services in this order was that the plaintiffs were not working with the respondents at all. The appellants filed Civil Writ Petition No.2876 of 1995 impuging the order of termination and the said writ petition was disposed of vide orders dated 23.2.1995 Ex.D2 granting the appellants liberty to make a representation to the Chairman of the PSEB who would look into the matter and if the case pleaded by the appellants was found to be correct then they be reinstated. Pursuant to these orders, the Chairman of the PSEB got the inquiry conducted from the Chief Engineer, PSEB who submitted his report on 30.5.95 and on the basis of same order Ex.D3 was passed. The finding which was returned in the inquiry was that even though the appellants were daily wagers but they not have completed 500 days are not entitled to the policy and had wrongly been treated as work charged employees vide earlier order dated 13.2.1990. On 17th July, 1995 acting upon the inquiry Chairman of the PSEB passed an order Ex. D3 refusing to interfere in the earlier order of termination dated 13.2.1995. This resulted in filing of another writ petition bearing No.14697 of 1995. This petition was disposed of with liberty to the appellants to file a civil suit as in the opinion of this Court it involved disputed questions of fact. The writ petition was disposed of on 28.7.1997 vide orders which are on record as Ex. P-3. In this manner, civil suit came to be filed. The respondents who have contested the suit produced the order to say that since the appellants have not completed the requisite RSA No. 1418 of 2005 3 number of days as daily wagers they were not entitled to be treated as work charged employees. Trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the order dated 14.11.1994 and no. 67 of 13.2.95 is illegal, null and void? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction? OPP. 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP. 5. Whether the suit is barred under the principle of the judicata? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiffs has no cause of action? OPD. 7. Relief. After appraisal of the evidence before it, Trial Court concluded that the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants did not deserve to be decreed and dismissed the same. In appeal, the findings of the learned Trial Court were affirmed. This has resulted in filing of the present Regular Second Appeal by the plaintiffs. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that in the impugned order dated 13.2.1995 the reason for termination of the plaintiffs-appellants was that they were not working as daily wagers at all but in the subsequent inquiry the reason given for passing the order was that the appellants though working as daily wagers have not completed 500 days of work so as to entitle them to the benefit of the policy. It was the RSA No. 1418 of 2005 4 contended case of the appellants that these two reasons are at variance with each other and this has substantially prejudiced their case for the reason that if it had been found that they have been working as daily wagers then they were entitled to continue as such, even though the benefit of the policy would not have been afforded to them. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that there is no infirmity in the judgment of the learned lower court and the same do not call for any interference. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the impugned judgments and record, I am of the considered opinion that the contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the appellants are without any merit. Concededly the appellants had not completed 500 days of work as daily wagers and hence they were not entitled to the benefit of the policy. There is no material on record to suggest that they had completed 500 days and the benefit of the policy has been wrongly denied to them. That being the situation the reason given in the impugned order would not make any difference for, even though they are treated to be daily wagers, they have no right to continue. There is, thus, no infirmity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below and they cannot be termed to be perverse so as to warrant any interference in this regular second appeal. No substantial question of law has been shown to have arisen for the consideration of this Court and the same being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. February 26, 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge