C.W.P. No.7386 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.7386 of 2001 DATE OF DECISION : 18.3.2011 Kamal Dev PETITIONER VERSUS Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T.Chandigarh and another -- RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri Om Pal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. MAHESH GROVER, J. Petitioner/workman has impugned the award of the Labour Court, U.T.Chandigarh dated 4.2.2000. The petitioner/workman claimed a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner pleaded that his name was sponsored by Employment Exchange, Chandigarh and he was appointed as a Part Time Attendant by the Director Principal, Medical College, Chandigarh on 1.7.1994 for a period of 89 days. He further pleaded that his services were extended for a period of 89 days repeatedly thereafter and he has completed more than 240 days when his services C.W.P. No.7386 of 2001 -2- were terminated on 28.2.1995. He pleaded that one Suresh Kumar son of Mala Ram was appointed as a Part Time Attendant with effect from 1.3.1995 on the same terms. The termination of the services of the petitioner/workman is in violation of the provisions of Sections 25G and 25H of the Act. He claimed a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act. The respondent/management took up the plea that the petitioner was appointed as a Part Time Attendant. His appointment was not against a regular post and he worked only for 235 days. The Tribunal concluded that the petitioner has not completed 240 days and thus, he not entitled to the benefit to be given under Section 25F of the Act since there was no evidence to show that any person junior to the petitioner had been retained and the plea of the petitioner on this count was also negated. The reference was declined. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned award deserves to be set aside as the action of the respondents is in violation of the provisions of the Act. The question which has been raised herein is as to whether a part time employee like the respondent/workman who entitled to the benefits of the Industrial Disputes Act and whether a part time worker who comes within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act, can also be treated to be a workman within the meaning of the Act, so as to be held entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Act in particular the provisions of Chapter IIA & V.B thereof. The question which has been raised herein was referred to the Full Bench in C.W.P. No.4660 of 1999 and in the admission order, the petition was ordered to be listed after the decision of the Full Bench. The Full Bench of this Court has since rendered the decision on 22.5.2008 and it has been concluded as under :- C.W.P. No.7386 of 2001 -3- “In view of the facts mentioned above, we conclude that a part time worker would fall within the definition of a workman as postulated under Sections 2(s) of the I.D.Act. However, nature of his employment will be that of a contractual employee and employer be at liberty to terminate him and his termination would not entitle him to get any benefit under the provisions of Chapter VA and VB of the I.D.Act. It is further clarified that to enforce rights and obligations arising under contract of employment, may be in writing or oral, the part time worker may invoke the provisions of I.D.Act other than contained in Chapter VA and VB of the Act.” In view of the aforesaid, when there is no dispute that the respondent/workman was working on part time basis and in view of the observations made by the Full Bench as extracted above, I am of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. (MAHESH GROVER) March 18, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO