IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11368 of 2007 Date of decision : 27th August, 2008 Indian Bank through its Deputy General Manager … Petitioner Versus Smt. Maya Devi and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present : Mr. H.C. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Present writ petition has been preferred by Indian Bank through its Deputy General Manager (hereinafter called the ‘management’) against Smt.Maya Devi (hereinafter called the ‘workman’). Petitioner- management has prayed that award dated 17th March, 2005 (Annexure P- 8) passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal – I, Chandigarh be set aside. A short point for consideration before us is that respondent- workman, who was employed as a part-time sweepress, can be construed to be workman under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) or not and if so, she is entitled to retrenchment compensation or not. In the claim statement filed before the Labour Court, in para 1, workman has stated as under: CWP 11368 of 2007 “1. That the petitioner workman was in the employment in Indian Bank as part time workman at its Sirsa branch w.e.f. 19.01.1995 continuously.” Therefore, it is admitted position that the workman was employed as a part-time sweepress. Learned Labour Court, after examining the evidence, held that the workman was not over-aged, as asserted by the management and having rendered 240 days, her services could not be terminated without compliance of Section 25-F of the Act. Therefore, the Labour Court concluded as under: “As the reference is answered in favour of the workman holding that her termination was illegal and unjustified w.e.f. 18.12.1995, the Bank management is directed to reinstated the workman as part time sweeper from the date of her termination i.e. 18.12.1995 with full back wages and with all consequential benefits.” The view taken by the Labour Court is not tenable. Hon'ble Apex Court, in Uttranchal Forest Hospital Trust v. Dinesh Kumar (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 542 held that part-time worker is not entitled to retrenchment compensation. This view has also been reiterated by a Full Bench of this Court in Gobind v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar and another in CWP No. 4660 of 1999 decided on 22nd May, 2008, wherein it has been held as under: “In view of facts mentioned above, we conclude that a part time worker would fall within the definition of a workman as postulated under Section 2(a) 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 2 CWP 11368 of 2007 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 authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court and the view taken by a Full Bench of this Court in Gobind’s case (supra), we have no other option except to allow the present writ petition and set aside the impugned award. Accordingly, present writ petition is allowed and impugned award is set aside. [HEMANT GUPTA] JUDGE [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 27, 2008. rps 3