CWP No. 12439 of 2006 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 12439 of 2006 Date of Decision: 19.9.2008 Chief Engineer/RSDC, Irrigation Works, Punjab ....Petitioner Versus Sh. Chilla Raju and another .....Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri A.S. Jattana, Additional AG, Punjab. Shri Archana Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the Award passed by the learned Labour Court (Annexure P.1) dated 25.1.2006, whereby the workman-respondent was ordered to be reinstated but without any backwages. The respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court in terms of Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short `the Act'), raising dispute in respect of termination of his services. It is the case of the workman that his services were terminated in September, 1991 without any notice; notice pay and retrenchment compensation, though he was engaged as labourer with effect from March, 1990. The stand of the management was that the workman has not CWP No. 12439 of 2006 (2) completed the service of 240 days in a Calendar year and that no order of termination of the services of the workman was passed. The workman left the job at his own accord and that the workman was engaged as daily wager with effect from 4.2.1990. In evidence Shri Bhumi Chand Thakur, SDO, appeared as MW1 and deposed that the workman left the job in February 1995. The learned Labour Court found that the workman has worked for a period of 240 days in the 12 Calendar months immediately before his services were terminated, therefore, such termination of the services of the workman is not justified. It is not in dispute that the workman was a daily wager. The grievance of the respondent-workman before the Labour Court was that his services were terminated without serving any notice. He was paid no notice pay and retrenchment compensation was also not paid and thus, violation of Section 25-F of the Act, has been committed. A further plea has been raised that his juniors were working with the management and maxim of `last come first go' has not been adhered to. The Labour Court concluded that the workman has rendered service of more than 240 days and that since provisions of Section 25-F of the Act have not been complied with, the workman is entitled to reinstatement. Since the entry of the workman into service was a backdoor entry and was neither in pursuance of any advertisement issued nor his name was requisitioned from any Employment exchange and no equal opportunity was afforded to similarly situated persons, therefore, termination of services of the workman will not amount to retrenchment The workman could not be reinstated in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others, (2006)4 SCC page 1. We find that the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Samrala v. Raj Kumar, (2006) 3 SCC 81 is that CWP No. 12439 of 2006 (3) unless an employee is appointed as per Rules and Regulations, his/her appointment cannot be treated to be consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Appointment given de hors the Rules and Regulations is liable to termination and is covered under Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Act and thus, does not amount to retrenchment. Similarly, in Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Limited, (2007) 1 SCC 533; Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, (2007)1 SCC 408; Reserve Bank of India v. Gopinath Sharma and another, (2006) 6 SCC 221 and U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and another v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and others, (2007)5 SCC 755, it has been held that reinstatement of a workman in public employment will not be consistent with Article 14 unless a workman had been appointed by following Rules and Regulations. In view of the above, we have no other option except to allow the present writ petition and set aside the impugned award dated 25.1.2006 (Annexure P.1) passed by the Labour Court. Ordered accordingly. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 19.9.2008 ds