LPA No. 223 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 223 of 2011 Date of decision:- 07.04.2011 Radha Krishan son of Sh. Jhandu Ram, resident of H. No. 315, W. No. 14, Jhajjar Chhawni, District Jhajjar. ......Appellant Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Gurgaon and another. ......Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * * RANJAN GOGOI, C.J. (ORAL) The appellant/writ petitioner was appointed as a Beldar on daily wages on 16.11.1988. On 07.03.1993, the services of the appellant/writ petitioner were terminated alongwith three other co- workers. All the aforesaid four persons including the appellant/writ petitioner instituted CWP No. 15693 of 1993 before this Court which was disposed of on 13.07.1994 by directing consideration of the case of the petitioners for regularization and to take them back into service if they fulfilled the required norms. Pursuant to the said order, the claim of the writ petitioners in CWP No. 15693 of 1993 was declined by the respondents which led to the institution of COCP No. 1047 of 1995. By order dated 22.03.1996 passed in the aforesaid contempt case it was LPA No. 223 of 2011 -2- held that while two of the workmen had rendered service for 240 days, two others, including the appellant/writ petitioner, had not worked for 240 days in one year and had remained absent for more than a month or 30 consecutive days. Therefore, it was held by the order dated 22.03.1996 in COCP No. 1047 of 1995 that the appellant/writ petitioner was not entitled to regularization. Thereafter, a reference of industrial dispute was made to the learned Labour Court, Gurgaon on the following question of law:- Whether termination of the service of Sh. Radha Krishan is justified or not? If not, to what relief he is entitled to? The learned Labour Court, inter-alia, came to the conclusion that the appellant/writ petitioner was appointed as a daily wage worker without adhering to the norms of public employment and, therefore, the provisions of Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not be applicable. The learned Single Judge has affirmed the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court by the impugned order dated 30.08.2010 giving rise to the present appeal. In view of the clear findings recorded in the order dated 22.03.1996 in COCP No. 1047 of 1995, as noticed by us above, we do not see how in the industrial reference, the learned Labour Court could have come to any other contrary conclusion. In fact, the reference made to the learned Labour Court was in a way foreclosed by the order of this Court passed in COCP No. 1047 of 1995. Even otherwise, the learned Labour Court considered the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner on merits and had recorded the conclusion that being a daily LPA No. 223 of 2011 -3- wage worker, who was brought into service without following any established norms of employment in public service, the appellant/writ petitioner was not entitled to invoke the provisions contained in Chapter VB of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 relating to retrenchment. In the light of the above discussion, we find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed without, however, any order as to cost. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE 07.04.2011 Amodh