C.W.P No.1046 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.1046 of 2009 Date of Decision: 04.08.2009 Rajesh Kumar .....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Panipat and another ....Respondents Present: Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl. A.G., Haryana. for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. 1. A Beldar working in PWD (B&R) Circle, Karnal on a temporary basis since 01.07.1999 was terminated from his service on 01.04.2000. The complaint against his termination through demand notice had resulted in reference to the Labour Court for consideration whether the termination was illegal and whether the workman was entitled to any relief. The Labour Court found that he had not completed 240 days of service to merit consideration of his plea and rejected the reference. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the Labour Court was in error in not making a proper reckoning of his services in various units of the same Department and if the services at C.W.P No.1046 of 2009 -2- various Divisions had been taken, it could be seen that he had completed 240 days of service. The contention of the workman is repelled by the management and Learned counsel appearing for the State, Sh. Nalwa points out that there were various Sub Divisions, which were under the control of the Superintending Engineer and the appointments had been done at the divisional levels. All the services in various Sub Divisions cannot be added as constituting continuous service. He refers to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Om Pal (2007) 2 SCC (L&S)255, which laid down that employment of a daily wager/casual employee in different establishments, even under the same employer or controlling authority, would not amount to his being in continuous service. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reasoned that it might be possible that various Divisions employed the same workman at different periods without knowing the period of engagement in yet another Division and the head of the institution cannot be burdened with a situation where the periods of engagement in various Divisions could be treated as a single employment. By the finding that the appointments had not been shown to have been made by the same authority and that they had been issued by three different Sub Divisions separately, the claim of the workman could not be accepted. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman points out that he had applied before the competent authority under the RTI Act for information about who had made the respective appointments to the petitioner at various times and the information that has been supplied has been put in Court to show that no separate appointment C.W.P No.1046 of 2009 -3- letters had been issued against the sanction issued by the Superintending Engineer but he was merely being appointed on contract basis. The information secured through the RTI Authority does not prove either way whether the appointment had been made directly by the same office of the Superintending Engineer. In the absence of clear evidence regarding how the workman had been appointed in various Divisions, it cannot be assumed by the only fact that the controlling authority was the same person that the service in all the Divisions must be counted singly to merit acceptance of the claim of the workman. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above squarely answers the issue. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the workman also advanced arguments to the effect that workman was entitled to reinstatement by virtue of the fact that the termination was bad. Having regard to the finding that the employment in three Divisions at various times cannot be counted as a single employment, I do not find it necessary to consider the other issue whether there is any right to reinstatement for a daily-rated worker who not even shown to have completed 240 days of service. All the authorities cited by him which deal with non- compliance of Section 25-F will have no bearing to this case since in the first place no case has been made out that there was any statutory violation. 5. The writ petition consequently fails and dismissed accordingly. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 04 , 2009 Pankaj*