IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17859 of 2003 Date of decision: 06.01.2009 The Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited and others .....PETITIONERS VERSUS Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Panipat and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Through this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the award dated 12.06.2002 (Annexure P-1) vide which the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Panipat has answered the reference in favour of respondent No. 2 holding him entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of demand notice i.e.07.10.1996. It was the claim of respondent No. 2 that he was working with the petitioner from 01.12.1991 to 01.07.1995 continuously as Chowkidar. It was his submission that junior to him i.e. Ajmer s/o Subhash of Village Brah Kalan is still continuing as Chowkidar and the post of Chowkidar still CWP No. 17859 of 2003 -2- exists. This is his submission that he has completed more than 240 days, therefore, the provisions of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, should have been complied with by the respondents before termination of his services. On the other hand, the petitioners have taken a stand that respondent No. 2-workman was employed on 01.12.1991 on D.C. rates for seasonal work (for watch and ward of wheat stock stored in godown/plinths) on daily wages. There is no regular work in Hafed. It has been stated that the workman has worked for 31 days in December, 1991, 28 days in February, 1992, 31 days in January, 1992, 29 days in March, 1992 and after that he has not worked with the petitioner. It has been further stated that the workman has worked for 119 days from December, 1991 to March, 1992. The workman was employed for temporary work. Thereafter, it has been stated that the workman was employed from 01.08.1993 to 29.08.1993 i.e. 29 days and for 6 days in October, 1993. The workman has further worked for 27 days in November, 1993 and in December, 1993, he has worked for 29 days. After that, his services were terminated and he has, as a matter of fact, worked only for 120 days in the last calendar year. Counsel for the petitioners contends that on the basis of the workman completing 119 days from December, 1991 to March, 1992 and thereafter, for 120 days from August, 1993 to December, 1993, the learned Labour Court has clubbed them together to come to a conclusion that respondent No. 2 has worked for 239 days with the Management-petitioner and thereafter, the Labourt Court has held the termination of the services of the workman to be an unfair labour practice. He contends that the requirement of law is that respondent No. 2-workman should have completed more than 240 days in the preceding calendar year from the date of termination and this fact having not been proved, respondent No. 2 CWP No. 17859 of 2003 -3- is not entitled to reinstatement in service. He further contends that the workman could not be reinstated with back wages as a daily wager has not got the right to the post and he was not appointed by following rules and regulations as the employment was a public employment. He further contends that in the light of the fact that the workman being a daily wager, his employment was terminable and Section 25-F of the Act will not be attracted in such a situation, as held in Municipal Council, Samrala, vs. Raj Kumar, 2006 (3) SCC 81. For these contentions, he further relies upon a judgment of this Court in The Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd, Panchkula through its Secretary vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Panipat and others, CWP No. 18030 of 2003 decided on 19.10.2007. I have gone through the records of the case and the impugned award dated 12.06.2002 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat. The contentions as raised by the counsel for the petitioners deserve to be accepted both on facts that respondent No. 2-workman has not completed more than 240 days in the preceding year, which would require compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, further in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Municipal Council, Samrala, vs. Raj Kumar, 2006 (3) SCC 81. The workman being a daily wager, his employment was terminable and Section 25-F of the Act will not be attracted in such a situation. In my considered view, the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment passed by this Court in The Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd, Panchkula through its Secretary vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Panipat and CWP No. 17859 of 2003 -4- others, CWP No. 18030 of 2003 decided on 19.10.2007, wherein it has been categorically held that even if 240 days service was completed, the workman was not entitled to reinstatement with back wages. As a daily wager, he did not have the right to the post and he was not appointed by following the rules and regulations. The employment being a public employment and Articles 14 and 16 having not been complied with, the workman was not entitled to reinstatement in service. This opinion, expressed by the Division Bench of this Court, is based on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. and another vs. S.C.Pandey, (2006) 2 SCC 716 and U.P. Power Corporation and another vs. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and others, (2007) 5 SCC 755. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the award dated 12.06.2002 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, is hereby quashed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE January 06, 2009 pj