IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 15457 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 08.10.2009 Chhote Lal ... PETITIONER Versus The Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. O.P. Kamboj, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner, who is working as part time Mali with the Punjab State Electricity Board, has filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 18.4.2009 (Annexure P-1), passed by respondent No.2, whereby his claim for regularisation on the post of Mali has been rejected. In the present case, the petitioner was engaged as part time Mali in 1988. Subsequently, he remained absent from duty with effect from 1.10.2000. He sought reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, alleging that he was not absent, rather his services were illegally terminated. The Labour Court, vide its Award dated 5.10.2004 (Annexure P-5) directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to -join his duty as part time worker as fresh appointee. In compliance with the Award of the Labour Court, the CWP No. 15457 of 2009 -2- petitioner was given fresh appointment on 5.10.2004. Since then, he has been working as part time Mali. The claim of the petitioner for regularisation of his services as regular Mali has been rejected on the ground that in the respondent Board, there are no Rules, Regulations or instructions, which provide for regularisation of the services of a part time worker. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the instructions dated 23.1.2001 (Annexure P-4) issued by the Punjab Government to all the heads of the Departments. These instructions talk about the regularisation of work charge/daily wage employees. In these instructions, it is no where provided that the part time employee can also be regularised. Since under the respondent Board's Rules/Regulations or instructions, there is no provision for regularisation of the part time services of a workman/employee, in my opinion, the respondents have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. No ground for interference in the impugned order is made out. Dismissed. October 08, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE