IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10041 of 2007 Date of decision : 3rd September, 2008 Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. … Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present : Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2 KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Present writ petition has been preferred by Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter called the ‘management’) against the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak and Smt.Ishwanti Devi (hereinafter called the ‘workman’). Petitioner- management has prayed that award dated 05.09.2006 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Labour Court, Rohtak be set aside. A short point for consideration before us is that respondent- workman, who was employed as a part-time Safai Karamchari, can be construed to be workman under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) or not and if so, she is entitled to Civil Writ Petition 10041 of 2007 retrenchment compensation or not. In the claim statement submitted before the Labour Court, in para 1, workman has stated as under: “1. That the workman was working with the management from 1 November 1982 on the post of Safai Karamchari and the last drawn wages of the Workman Rs.1100/- per month.” It has been stated that the workman was employed as a part- time Safai Karamchari. Para 8 of the impugned award record contention of workman that she was employed as part time Sweeper. Learned Labour Court, after examining the evidence, held that the workman was not over-age, as asserted by the management and he worked for more than 240 days and his services could not be terminated without compliance of Section 25-F of the Act. Therefore, the Labour Court concluded as under: “In view of my finding on the foregoing issues, it is held that service of the workman has been terminated illegally. Therefore, she is entitled to be re-instated on her previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 20.4.2001. In this regard, I draw support from 2006 (1) RSJ SC 80. Hence, I decide this reference in favour of the workman and against the management. Award is hereby passed accordingly. File be consigned to record room.” The view taken by the Labour Court is not tenable. Hon'ble Apex Court, in Uttranchal Forest Hospital Trust v. Dinesh Kumar (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 542 held that part-time worker is not entitled to retrenchment compensation. This view has also been reiterated by a Full Bench of this Court in Gobind v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, 2 Civil Writ Petition 10041 of 2007 Jalandhar and another in CWP No. 4660 of 1999 decided on 22nd May, 2008, wherein it has been held as under: “In view of facts mentioned above, we conclude that a part time worker would fall within the definition of a workman as postulated under Section 2(a) of the I.D. Act. However, nature of his employment will be that of a contractual employee and employer be at liberty to terminate him and his termination would not entitle him to get any benefit under the provisions of Chapter VA and VB of the I.D. Act. It is further clarified that to enforce rights and obligations arising under contract of employment, may be in writing or oral, the part time worker may invoke the provisions of I.D. Act other than contained in Chapter VA and VB of the Act.” In view of the authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court and the view taken by a Full Bench of this Court in Gobind’s case (supra), we have no other option except to allow the present writ petition and set aside the impugned award. Accordingly, present writ petition is allowed and impugned award is set aside. [HEMANT GUPTA] JUDGE [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE September 03, 2008. rps 3