C.W.P. No.20443 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.20443 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION : 18.3.2011 The S.D.O.(OP), Sub Division, DHBVNL, Jhoju and another PETITIONERS VERSUS Jagdish Rai and another RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri Anil Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioners/Management has impugned the award of the Labour Court, Rohtak dated 1.5.2006. A reference was claimed under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the following effect:- “Whether the termination of services of Sh.Jagdish Rai is justified and if not, to what relief he is entitled to?” C.W.P. No.20443 of 2006 -2- The respondent/workman had raised a demand on 7.2.2001 against the petitioners/management alleging that he was appointed as a Water Carrier in the month of May, 1988 on daily wages. and his work and conduct was satisfactory, but his services were terminated erroneously on 6.12.2000 without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He further alleged that the persons junior to him were still working and, therefore, there has been violation of the provisions of Sections 25G and 25H of the Act. The petitioner/management set up a plea that the respondent was not a workman within the definition of the Act and that he was working on daily wages. His services were terminated on 6.12.2000, because as per policy of Nigam, only on part time workman was allowed to be kept on the roll of the management. Thus, no right of the respondent has been infringed. They pleaded that the provisions of the Act were neither attracted, nor violated. The Tribunal concluded that the respondent/workman had continuously worked from 5/1988 to 6.12.2000 and certain persons namely Smt.Bimla, Shri Rajinder Singh, Shri Dharminder and Shri Hem Raj who were part time workmen, were still working with the Management. It answered the reference in favour of the workman and ordered his reinstatement with continuity in service with 50% wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 7.2.2001. The question which has been raised herein is as to whether a part time employee like the respondent/workman was entitled to the benefits of the Industrial Disputes Act and whether a part time worker who comes within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act, can also be treated to be a workman within the meaning of the Act, so as to be held entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Act in particular the provisions of Chapter IIA & V.B thereof. The question which has been raised herein was referred to the Full Bench in C.W.P. No.4660 of 1999 and in the admission order, the petition was C.W.P. No.20443 of 2006 -3- ordered to be listed after the decision of the Full Bench. The Full Bench of this Court has since rendered the decision on 22.5.2008 and it has been concluded as under :- “In view of the facts mentioned above, we conclude that a part time worker would fall within the definition of a workman as postulated under Sections 2(s) 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 aforesaid, when there is no dispute that the respondent/workman was working on part time basis and in view of the observations made by the Full Bench, as extracted above, I am of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned award deserves to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. (MAHESH GROVER) March 18, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO