IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 982 of 2009. Date of Decision : January 21, 2009. Khem Chand. ...... Petitioner. Versus. The Presiding Officer-cum-Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh, and another. ...... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sangwan, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). This petition has been preferred by challenging the award dated 27.01.2006 (Annexure-P-5), passed by the Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh, vide which reference made has been declined against the workman. It is the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Peon on temporary basis. He submits that the appointment was not for a fixed term and his service has been terminated because of the allegations that the work and conduct of the workman was not satisfactory. If that be taken as the basis, the procedure as prescribed under Punjab Civil Services Rules which are applicable, should have been applied and without complying with those provisions stated thereunder, the termination would not be valid. It is further his submission that since the appointment was not for a fixed term, therefore, the provisions of Section 2 (oo) (bb) would not be applicable as far as the workman is concerned. C.W.P. No. 982 of 2009. I have gone through the appointment letter dated 31.12.1996 (Annexure-P-1) wherein it has been specifically stated that the petitioner was appointed to the post of temporary peon. The relevant terms and conditions as stipulated thereunder are reproduced herein below :- “1. That this appointment is completely on temporary basis and which can be terminated at any time and your services can be terminated at any time without giving any reason, when not required. You cannot be given assurance for permanent appointment. At this time, you cannot be offered any permanent appointment and regarding this you would be afforded the opportunity similar to the employees who have been appointed in the same way. 2. If you give your resignation from this post at any time then you will have to give one month's notice, otherwise, your one month's salary would be forfeited. If your services are terminated on the basis of para 1, then prior to that you will be given one month's notice. If you would be found in any offence in any matter then you would be afforded sufficient time to explain your position through show cause notice that as to why your services should not be terminated and in such situation the terms and conditions of one month's notice would not apply. 6. Your probation period would be for two years from the date of appointment, which can be extended for further one year.” -2- C.W.P. No. 982 of 2009. A perusal of the above would show that services of the employee could be terminated at any time without giving any reason when the same was not required. What was primarily required was one month notice to be given prior to such termination. It is also stipulated that period of probation would be two years from the date of appointment, which can be extended for further one year. The admitted position as far as this is concerned is that the workman was under the probation period when his services were terminated. It is also not in dispute that the workman was working on a post which was purely temporary, and therefore, had no right to hold the said post. The order of termination does not show that the said action was in any way punitive in nature or that it is in any way hampering his future appointment in any way. Notice of one month was given to the petitioner. It is an order pure and simple as per terms of the appointment . Since the termination of the workman is in accordance with the stipulation contained in the contract of his appointment, the termination of the workman would come within the exception to retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) and proviso (bb) would be fully applicable to the present case. A perusal of the award would show that the Labour Court has also on perusal of the pleadings and the evidence produced before it, has given the same finding. I do not find any illegality in the award passed by the Labour Court. In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 21, 2009. sjks. -3-