Civil Writ Petition No.2069 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Misc. No. 6458 of 2008 with Civil Writ Petition No.2069 of 2007 Date of decision: April 08, 2008 Executive Engineer, PWD Public Health Division No.2, Sirsa. … Petitioner Versus Prem Singh and another … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General Haryana for the petitioner. Mr. B.S.Mittal, Advocate for the respondent No.1. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA , J. (ORAL) Civil Misc. No. 6458 of 2008 CM allowed. Statement of Sh.Prem Singh, workman and Sh.Bhagwan Dass, SDO taken on record. Main Case Petitioner questions the award of the labour Court dated 24th July, 2006 (Annexure P-3), vide which the workman was ordered to be re- Civil Writ Petition No.2069 of 2007 2 instated with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of issuance of demand notice and full back wages thereafter. As per demand notice, the workman was appointed as a Beldar on daily wage basis on 06.07.2001. His services were terminated on 13th April, 2002. The workman raised industrial dispute stating that as he had worked for more than 240 days in the calendar year preceding his termination, hence he is liable to be re-instated in service as there was non- compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The matter was referred to the labour Court, wherein the stand taken on behalf of State of Haryana was that the workman was never an employee of the department and that he has forged the attendance register. Learned labour Court, vide the impugned award has held that the workman worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination and as there was non compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, workman was ordered to be re-instated in service with 50% back wages and continuity of service. There is no dispute that the workman was engaged on daily wage basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that employment with the State being public employment governed by rules and regulations, had to be made by following statutory procedure and any casual appointment on daily wages not being consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution, the order of reinstatement was not justified. It was also submitted that disengagement of the workman was as per contract. Learned counsel for the workman supported the impugned award. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. Civil Writ Petition No.2069 of 2007 3 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. v. Workmen, (2007) 1 SCC 408, Reserved Bank of India vs. 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. 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 v. Raj Kumar, (2006) 3 SCC 81. Therefore, this writ petition is accordingly allowed and the award passed by the labour Court (Annexure P-3) is set aside. [ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA] JUDGE [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE April 08, 2008. rps