CWP No.16437 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: CWP No.16437 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION: May 20, 2008 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD, PUBLIC ...PETITIONER HEALTH DIVISION, BAHADURGARH VERSUS BIJENDER SINGH & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. PRESENT: MR. SUNIL NEHRA, AAG, HARYANA, FOR THE PETITIONER. DR. SURYA PARKASH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-workman was employed on 8.7.1995 on daily wage basis upto 22.4.1996, when his services were terminated. It is contended that as the petitioner was not engaged either through Employment Exchange or has been employed in pursuance to any advertisement, hence he is not entitled to be reinstated in service and the award of the Labour Court is liable to be set aside. The arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner have been controverted by the counsel for the respondent No.1. It has been averred that the workman was employed on monthly basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that employment with the State being public employment governed by rules and regulations, it had to be by following statutory procedure and any casual appointment on daily wages not being consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution, the CWP No.16437 of 2006 -2- order of reinstatement was not justified. It was also submitted that disengagement of the workman was as per contract. We are of the view that the workman having been appointed only on daily wages, without following any procedure, could not be reinstated in service, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Workmen, (2007) 1 SCC 408, Reserve Bank of India vs. Gopinath Sharma and another, (2006) 6 SCC 221 and U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and another vs. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and others, (2007) 5 SCC 755. Moreover, appointment on daily wages being terminable as per contract, the case will fall under Clause (bb) to Section 2(oo) of the Act and termination will not amount to retrenchment as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Samrala vs. Raj Kumar, (2006) 3 SCC 81. Accordingly, we allow this petition and quash the impugned award. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE May 20, 2008 (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) Gulati JUDGE