LPA No. 908 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 908 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: November 30, 2009 Azad Singh ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the appellant. ORDER 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition against termination of services of the writ petitioner by order dated 29.2.2000 and award of Labour Court dated 13.1.2009. 2. The workman was employed part time water man for 3 ½ hours daily by way of temporary arrangement. His services were terminated for want of sanction of post against which he raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication. The Labour Court decided the matter against the workman holding that there was no violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as the matter was covered by clause (bb) of Section 2 (oo) of the Act and did not amount to retrenchment. Reliance was placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Samrala Versus Raj Kumar 2006 (3) SCC 81. It was further observed that the workman did not produce any LPA No. 908 of 2009 2 appointment letter. His appointment was of casual nature and he could not be reinstated in service. Reliance was also placed on Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Uma Devi and others 2006 (4) SCC 1. The workman preferred writ petition in this Court, which has been dismissed with the observations that the workman could not be reinstated against public post when his appointment was not made after following the rules. Apart from judgment in Uma Devi (supra), reliance was placed on judgments in Ghaziabad Development Authority and another vs. Ashok Kumar and another 2008 (4) SCC 261, Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat, Gujraula (2008) 1 SCC 575, M.P. Administration vs. Tribhuwan (2007) 9 SCC 748 and State of M.P. And others Vs. Lalit Kumar Verma (2007) 1 SCC 575. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Only contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that post was still lying vacant and others workmen have been regularized. There is no reference to such contentions in the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge. Having regard to the nature of appointment of the appellant, the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to above, fully applies and it can not be held that there was any violation of Section 25F of the Act. The workman cannot be held entitled to reinstatement. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 30, 2009 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE