Civil Writ Petition No. 18152 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 18152 of 2009 Date of decision: 30.07.2010 Ranjit Singh ...petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. The petition is filed by workman, who claims that he was appointed as Driver by respondent No. 2 from 1998 on daily wages. He had joined the services of the respondent ,when the then Executive Engineer, Department of Panchayati Raj, Haryana had appointed him as driver for driving his official car bearing registration No. HR-01 H-2054, which was a government vehicle. As per the petitioner, he continued to work as such till 20.12.1994. There is also a mention made that he was appointed by the respondent directly and not through any agency or contractor. His services were terminated abruptly in the year 2004 without giving any notice or salary, which according to the petitioner, would amount to Civil Writ Petition No. 18152 of 2009 2 retrenchment that too in violation of the provisions contained in Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes. At that stage, the petitioner had filed the writ petition before this Court, which was disposed of with the direction to consider his claim for regularisation. His claim had subsequently been rejected. The petitioner would term this as wrong and illegal. It was mentioned in the order that he was employed by respondent No. 1 for a period from 25.09.1998 to November 1998 and for a month of September 1999 whereas for the rest of the period he was shown to have been employed through the different contractors. As per the stand of the respondents, the petitioner infact was employed by the contractors and the respondents would also say that he was wrongly and illegally shown in the employment of Sh. Ashok Kumar. The Contractors have also been impleaded as party in the petition. Notice was issued. On the asking of the counsel for the petitioner, service to the contractor impleaded as respondents was dispensed with. As already noted, the petitioner was terminated without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The labour Court has ultimately dismissed the reference by holding that the petitioner was not in the employment of the respondent- department and his appointment was not, as per the rules, and he would not be entitled to reinstatement as prayed for. Counsel for the petitioner refers to the evidence given by the petitioner before the labour Court. The labour Court has held that the employee working as daily wager cannot be reinstated/regularised in public employment, which is governed by the rules and regulations. In this regard, labour Court referred to Civil Writ Petition No. 18152 of 2009 3 judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3657 and Gangadhar Filial V. Siemens Limited, 2007 1 SCC 533. As per the labour Court, the ratio of law laid down in these judgments would fully apply to the case. The petitioner could not show that offer of appointment was made by the management and while appointing the requirements as laid down in the statue or statutory rules was followed. His appointment was, accordingly not found in conformity with the statutory rules and the instructions or the policy laid down by the Government of Haryana. Counsel for the petitioner, however, drew my attention to the decision in Civil Writ Petition No. 6673 of 2006 titled as Range Forest Officer, Rewari and another versus Sh. Ram Chander and another decided on 02.09.2009 passed by Single Bench of this Court. I have perused the judgment referred to before me. The learned Single Judge of this Court dealt with the situation, where the appointment against the rules are made and they have been termed as class. Number of cases are referred to where appointments were made on contract basis as per availability of work and in such situation, it was held that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act would not be attracted if a contractual employee is not given work. It has also been observed that the cases of contractual employee, to whom the provisions of Section 2(oo) (bb) would apply, are simply not cases to which Section 25-F could be attracted. The Court has held that the cases where engagement is Civil Writ Petition No. 18152 of 2009 4 contrary to the Rules, Section 25-F cannot apply. Accordingly, I do not find anything in the judgment, which would support the contention and the view advanced by the counsel for the petitioner. There is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the labour Court. No case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction, thus, is made out. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. July 30, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE