IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15790 of 1999 Date of decision:27.08.2009 Smt. Sharda ...Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Hissar and others. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Jitender Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the award of the Labour Court rejecting a reference sought by the workman on the ground that his services had been illegally terminated. It was an admitted case that she was working in the office of the Deputy Estate Officer of C.C.S. Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar, from 22.02.1993 to 20.08.1993 and subsequently, she was working in the office of the Deputy Estate Officer, from 06.09.1993 to 30.11.1993. If her services were to be reckoned in both the establishments, she had more than 240 days of service. 2. The point for consideration before the Labour Court was whether the workman was entitled to club her periods of her engagement as a Sweepress under the Director, Student Welfare and the Deputy Civil Writ Petition No.15790 of 1999 - 2 - Estate Officer of the University. The test to determine whether she was entitled to reckon both these different departments as falling within the same establishment, in my view, must be seen in the context of how the “employer” has defined in Section 2(g) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which reads as follows: 2 (g) "employer" means-- (i) in relation to an industry carried on by or under the authority of any department of Government or a State Government, the authority prescribed in this behalf, or where no authority is prescribed, the head of the department; (ii) in relation to an industry carried on by or on behalf of a local authority, the chief executive officer of that authority”. 3. From the definition it is seen that in relation to an industry carried on under authority of any department, the authority prescribed himself will be the employer, if there was no authority prescribed under head of the department. In this case, there were two distinct wings of Agricultural University that had availed the services of the Sweepress. What should have been possible for the head of the departments to do in his own authority as a Director, Student Welfare cannot be taken to be in any way related to the engagement of the same person in the Deputy Estate Officer, University. It may have been possible if the engagement had been in the Estate Office or in the Student Welfare by different officers in the hierarchy, but where it is done in two different establishments, it shall not be possible to combine both. The learned counsel for the petitioner has himself was fair to point out the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority Versus Om Pal-(2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 255, where the Court held that the Civil Writ Petition No.15790 of 1999 - 3 - employment on daily wages in different establishments under the same employer would not amount to his being in continuous of service. Although this judgment has not been rendered in the context of the definition of Section 2(g) of the Industrial Disputes Act, even by an application of Section 2(g), it does not approve the situation of the workman. 4. The award of the Labour Court, under the circumstances, is perfectly justified and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 27.08.2009 sanjeev