C.W.P. No.442 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.442 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 18.3.2011 The Director, Secondary Education Deptt., Haryana, Chandigarh and others -- PETITIONERS VERSUS Smt.Santosh Devi and another RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri Harish Rathee, Senior D.A.G. Haryana for the petitioner/State. None for the respondents. MAHESH GROVER, J. The State of Haryana has impugned the award of the Labour Court, Rohtak dated 12.7.2006. The respondent/workman claimed a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the following effect :- “Whether termination of services of Smt.Santosh Devi is justified and if not, to what relief she is entitled to?” The respondent/workman had raised a demand on 14.5.2001 and alleged that she was appointed as a Sweeper-cum-Waterman in Govt. high School, C.W.P. No.442 of 2007 -2- Umravat District Bhiwani on 1.1.1990 and her work and conduct was satisfactory, but despite that, her services were terminated on 6.4.2001 verbally and without assigning any reason. She pleaded that he was appointed against a regular post and had completed more than 240 days of service and her termination was illegally done without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. She further pleaded that since persons juniors to her have been permitted to work, therefore, there was violation of the provisions of Section 25G and 25H of the Act. The petitioner pleaded that it was not an industry and the respondent was not a workman. The respondent was appointed as a Part Time Sweeper for a period of only 2-1/2 hours a day and thereafter she was at liberty to do any work anywhere. It was also pleaded that the respondent had not completed 240 days of service and denied that any person junior to the respondent was working with the petitioner. The Tribunal concluded that the respondent/workman had completed 240 days of service and her termination was illegal and it was done without compliance of the provisions of the Act. It then directed reinstatement of the respondent/workman on her previous post with continuity of service along with 50% of the back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 14.5.2001. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 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 :- “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, C.W.P. No.442 of 2007 -3- 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 allowed and the impugned award deserves to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. (MAHESH GROVER) March 18, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO