IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 17815 of 2007. Date of Decision : February 06, 2009. Sumer Chand .... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, and another. ...Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. Naveen Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent No. 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 12.09.2003 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Labour Court, Ambala, vide which the reference has been answered against the petitioner-workman on the ground that the petitioner-workman has been unable to prove that he has been in service with the respondents continuously from 1991 to 1998 nor has he been able to prove that in the last twelve preceding months from the date of his termination, he had completed 240 days with the respondent- management. Counsel for the petitioner-workman contends that the stand of respondent-management in response to the claim petition was that the C.W.P. No. 17815 of 2007. petitioner-workman was deployed on daily wage basis at D.C. Rates as per necessity of the work whereas before the Labour Court the stand taken by the respondent-management is that the petitioner-workman himself has chosen not to come to service and his services were never terminated. He further contends that the factual aspect that he has worked from 1991 to 1998 with respondents have also been admitted by the witnesses appearing for the respondent-management, and therefore, he contends that the petitioner-workman would be entitled to reinstatement. He further contends that since persons junior to the petitioner- workman have been retained in service which would violate the provisions of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, irrespective of petitioner-workman having completed 240 days in service or not, he would be entitled to reinstatement in service with back wages. A submission has further been made that termination of the services of the petitioner-workman after such a long period with the respondents would amount to unfair labour practice as the same would be covered by Schedule 5 Entry 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. He on this basis submits that the award passed by the Labour Court, cannot be sustained. I have gone through the award passed by the Labour Court, Ambala. A perusal thereof would show that the petitioner-workman has miserably failed to show that he has all through worked continuously from 1991 to 1998 with the respondents. Thereafter, the period which has been admitted by the respondent-management that the petitioner-workman has worked with them also shows that he has merely worked for a few days during this period and in no year he has exceeded 124 days with the -2- C.W.P. No. 17815 of 2007. respondents. Therefore, the submission of counsel for the petitioner- workman that he is entitled to reinstatement on this ground, cannot be accepted. The contention of counsel for the petitioner as regards the stand of the respondents initially that the workman was engaged as worker on daily wages as per requirement of the work and thereafter turning around and saying that his services were not terminated, also cannot be accepted for the simple reason that a daily wager has no right to the post, and therefore, he has to make himself available to depute him on work. If he comes present and there is work available, the same can be assigned to him. Therefore, it cannot be said that the workman has been terminated from service. The other contention of counsel for the petitioner that termination of service of petitioner-workman would be in violation of provisions of Schedule 5(10) as it is an unfair labour practice, also cannot be sustained for the simple reason that there is no termination of service as has been observed above. In the light of what has been observed above, there is no merit in the present writ petition and therefore, cannot be accepted. No illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned Presiding Court, Labour Court, Ambala, while passing the award dated 12.09.2003 (Anneuxure-P-1) which would call for inference by this Court. The present writ petition is therefore dismissed. A prayer has been made by counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner-workman has been admittedly working with the respondents from 1991 to 1998 although intermittently, he should be considered for daily -3- C.W.P. No. 17815 of 2007. wage engagement. It is for the respondent-management to take sympathetic view in the matter and consider the claim of petitioner-workman with regard to his making available for taking him on daily wage basis as and when required in accordance with law. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE February 06, 2009. sjks. -4-