IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.1142 of 2009 Date of decision: February 6, 2009 Karnail Singh & another ... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. P.K. Sachdev, Advocate for the petitioners. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? AJAY TEWARI, J.(Oral) The petitioners were given the agency of making advance booking of the buses by order dated 20.08.1994 wherein they were allowed commission of 5%. Thereafter, the said policy was taken back and the agency of the petitioners was terminated since it was decided that the work of advance booking was to be done by the employees of the department. The petitioners challenged this action by writ petition bearing No.8850 of 1996 which was dismissed with the following directions: “We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. We are of the considered view that since the scheme has been withdrawn, no notice whatsoever was required to be given to the petitioners and they cannot have any legitimate grouse, in case the scheme is revived and petitioners apply for the same, there cases are to be considered as per their eligibility.” CWP No.1142 of 2009 -2- Now after 12 years, this writ petition has been filed claiming that the petitioner should be appointed as Conductors because that was the job they were doing. A claim is also made that the petitioner are workmen under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In my opinion, this writ petition is based on fallacious grounds. In the first place, the claim that the petitioners should be appointed as Conductors was available to the petitioners when the earlier writ petition was dismissed. Secondly, a sine qua non for being covered under the post of workmen is the fact of employment in an industry. The petitioners were merely given an agency. The reliance on the earlier decision is also misplaced since that envisages consideration of the petitioners only when and if the similar policy of agencies was reformulated. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. No costs. February 6, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia/ashish JUDGE