IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15832 of 2000 Date of decision:05.09.2009 Narender Kumar ...Petitioner versus Guru Jambheshwar University Hisar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. R.N.Lohan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate, for Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate, for the respondents. ---- 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 award under challenge is a rejection of reference sought by the workman that although he had been appointed on 22.05.1995 pursuant to an advertisement and retained in service till 12.02.1997, the termination had been made without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F. Another workman by name Narender Kumar similarly placed appeared to have filed a Civil Writ Petition No.3486 of 1997 and the same was dismissed. The Labour Court assumed the dismissal of the writ petition to govern his case as well. There were other grounds also on the basis of which the rejection of the reference was made. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the workman contends that the appointment was made on a work-charge basis and when it found Civil Writ Petition No.15832 of 2000 - 2 - that he had completed 240 days of continuous service ought to have seen that the termination could not have been effected without reference to Section 25-F. According to him, the termination was effected contravening the said provisions and therefore illegal and void. He would also contend that the assumption of the Labour Court that he had filed a writ petition was also incorrect and he had only approached the Labour Court for appropriate relief after he was served with an order of termination. His contention was also that the finding of the Labour Court that his appointment was governed by Section 2(oo)(bb) was not justified. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the University refers to the appointment order itself which recites; “ the appointment is on work- charge basis for a period not exceeding six months on a specific contract or till regular selection is made whichever is earlier....”. The order relieving the workman from the post of the draftsman was made by referring to the fact that due to lack of work and selection of regular draftsman, it became necessary to relieve the workman from the duties. If the work-charge employee is relieved when a permanent appointee is made to a regular post as per Service Rules of the University, the workman cannot complain that the termination constituted retrenchment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, while considering similar expression as found in the appointment order has held in Punjab State Electricity Board Versus Darbara Singh-(2006) 1 SCC 121, as coming squarely within the Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The engagement was therefore on the happening of particular event which Civil Writ Petition No.15832 of 2000 - 3 - was stipulated in the contract of appointment itself. The workman cannot complain of any statutory violation. 4. Even as regards the compensation, although the Labour Court has observed that the compensation of Rs.6510/- had not been admittedly paid at the time of retrenchment, the learned counsel appearing for the University has stated that there was no such admission before the Labour Court and on the other hand, the order of termination that was issued on 12.02.1997 itself made a specific reference to a cheque bearing No.072131 dated 12.02.1997 for Rs.6510/- as having accompanied the letter of communication. Even taking the service was not governed by Section 2(oo)(bb) and that Section 25-F applied, even then the termination has been made in the manner that the law would dictate, if at all, he could complain the termination that would operate as retrenchment. 5. The writ petition challenging the award cannot be sustained and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be however no directions as to costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 05.09.2009 sanjeev