Civil Writ Petition No. 9945 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 9945 of 2007 Date of Decision: 29.4.2008 The Director, Technical Education and Industrial Training, Punjab, Chandigarh. …Petitioner Versus Raghbir Singh and Another. …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Salil Sagar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the petitioner. Mr. H.S.Hundal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. The present petition has been preferred by the Director, Technical Education and Industrial Training, Punjab, Plot No.1, Sector 36, Chandigarh, challenging the award dated 15.12.2006 (Annexure P9) passed by the Labour Court, Chandigarh. Respondent No.1-workman had served demand notice dated Civil Writ Petition No. 9945 of 2007 2 1.10.1999 (Annexure P2) wherein it was stated that he was appointed as Waterman on 1.5.1995 and continuously worked upto 30.6.1999 and his services were terminated without assigning any reason whatsoever and there is violation of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”). In the reply to the demand notice, it was stated that respondent No.1-workman was appointed on daily wages and there was no violation of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act. Before the Labour Court, petitioner-Management also raised a plea that he was engaged on a World Bank Project which was completed on 30.6.1999. Learned Labour Court held that the workman had completed 240 days. No appointment letter of workman or details of payment of salary to him from the funds of World Bank Project has been produced by the Management. It was further held that since the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act have not been complied with, therefore, termination of workman as daily wager i.e. Waterman w.e.f. 30.6.1999 was held to be illegal. He was held entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity of service but he was not awarded back wages. It was further held that reinstatement of workman should not create any right to seek regularization or debar the Management from dispensing with the services of the workman after complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Mr. Salil Sagar, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the Management has stated that the workman was not appointed as per rules and regulations but was a contractual employee on daily wages and termination of his services do not amount to Civil Writ Petition No. 9945 of 2007 3 retrenchment. He could not be reinstated in view of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Others (2006) 4 SCC 1. Learned counsel for the workman submitted that termination of his services being illegal, the workman was entitled to full back wages. The management has neither implemented the award so far nor has challenged the same for more than one year. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. We find that the view taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Samrala v. Raj Kumar (2006) 3 Supreme Court Cases 81 is that unless an employee is appointed as per rules and regulations, his appointment cannot be treated to be consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Appointment given de hors the rules and regulations is liable to termination and is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and thus, does not amount to retrenchment. Similarly, in Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Limited (2007)1 Supreme Court Cases 533, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen (2007)1 Supreme Court Cases 408, Reserve Bank of India v. Gopinath Sharma and another (2006) 6 supreme Court Cases 221 and U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Another v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and Others (2007) 5 Supreme Court Cases 755, it has been held that reinstatement of a workman in public employment will not be consistent with Article 14 unless a workman had been appointed by following rules and regulations. Civil Writ Petition No. 9945 of 2007 4 Accordingly, we quash the impugned award dated 15.12.2006 (Annexure P9) and accept the present writ petition. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge (Ashutosh Mohunta) Judge April 29, 2008 “DK”