IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14460 of 2010 The Chief Engineer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA), Mohali Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh & another Present: Mr.Harit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner-Management has filed this writ petition to challenge the award passed by the Labour Court dated 4.1.2010. The respondent-workman was employed by the petitioner on contractual basis as is claimed in the writ petition. The case set up in the petition and before the Labour Court is that contract of employment was not renewed after 31.12.2002, but he continued to work during the months of January and February, 2003. The ex-post facto approval/sanction was granted for the wages. The respondent- workman raised a demand notice, which was contested by the petitioner-Management. The Labour Court after considering the evidence produced by the respective parties has allowed the reference and directed reinstatement of the respondent-workman by awarding ` 60,000/- as lump-sum compensation in lieu of back wages. The petitioner-Management has, thus, filed the present writ petition to impugn the said order. The main submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent-workman was employed on contract basis and the contractual employment would not lead to any right in favour of the respondent-workman. The contract could also be terminated. The finding of fact, however, as recorded by the Labour Civil Writ Petition No.14460 of 2010 : 2 : Court is otherwise. On the basis of documents, the Labour Court came to conclude that the respondent-workman had been employed as a part time Sweeper to work for four hours daily and was paid salary monthly. No document was shown to indicate that it was a contractual employment. Even now, no document could be pointed out from the record to show that the respondent-workman was employed on contractual basis. Considering the definition of a workman as contained in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the workman was held entitled to the benefit of Sections 25-B and 25-F of the Act. I do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Labour Court. The plea that the respondent-workman could not have been directed to be reinstated, as his appointment was against the rules, also cannot be accepted. Management cannot first appoint a person ignoring the rule position and then take up a plea that he would not be entitled to the relief of reinstatement on that count. No merit. Dismissed. August 23, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE