C.W.P No.2307 of 1993 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P No.2307 of 1993
Date of Decision: 21.07.2009
General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Rohtak .....Petitioner
Versus
Krishan Lal and another ....Respondents
Present: Ms. Deepinder Kaur, Advocate for
Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kartar Singh, AAG, Haryana.
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
-.-
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)
1. The Haryana Roadways, which is aggrieved by the order
directing reinstatement of the workman by the award of the Labour
Court, is the petitioner before this Court challenging the award under
Article 226 of the Consitution of India.
2. The admitted case of the workman was that he had been
employed as a Helper on daily wages in the Haryana Roadways. He
was employed during various periods namely 13.05.1984 to
08.11.1984, 09.11.1984 to 31.01.1985 and from 18.05.1985 to
30.09.1986 but ultimately he was terminated from service when his
conduct was found to be reprehensible having turned up to the work
place under influence of liquor. A report had also been given to the
General Manager for information and the workman had been sent to
C.W.P No.2307 of 1993 -2-
the police station for appropriate action.
3. The further allegation was that on 29.09.1986, under the
influence of liquor, he abused the officials and from the following day
from 30.09.1986, he had not been given any employment. That gave
rise to the dispute which had been referred to the Labour Court and
the Labour Court held that at the relevant time when the termination
of service was effected, he had completed only 218 days but still the
Labour Court held that he had been removed from service only in
order to see that he did not complete 240 days. The removal was
characterized by the Labour Court as an unfair labour practice and
directed reinstatement with all benefits of service.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the
crucial requirement of having worked for a continuous period of 240
days prior to the termination was not there and therefore, the
termination should not have been termed to be in violation of Section
25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court had committed
mistake in taking the various periods of service in the previous years
as entitling him to any continuity of service, when actually his
engagement had been only on ad hoc basis. There was no ground
again to make a special pleading on favour of the workman in the
manner the Labour Court had done by saying that the termination of
service was in anticipation of a possible accrual of right if he had
completed 240 days. To infer unfair labour practice, there ought to
have been a persistent conduct of a management that showed that it
had caused deliberate breaks in service only to prevent a workman
from completing 240 days. The various intervals during which the
C.W.P No.2307 of 1993 -3-
workman had worked do not go to suggest that any deliberate act on
the part of management to prevent him from completing 240 days was
practised. The earlier spells during the employment between the year
1984-85 merely show that he had been in employment for one or two
months at a stretch but never for any length of period proximating to
240 days to make an inference that the management was adopting a
deliberate unfair labour practice.
5. If the workman had not completed 240 days and when the
inference of unfair labour practice cannot be made, in the given set of
facts there was no scope for complaint of termination of service
especially when he was a daily wager. He was not entitled to the
benefits of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
6. It has again come by authoritative pronouncements of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Court that in the manner of
public appointments, there cannot be regularization or reinstatement
of daily-rated workers and the Labour Court was, therefore, not
justified in directing reinstatement to such daily-rated worker who had
no right to the post under any Service Rules or Regulations.
7. The order of the Labour Court is set aside and the writ
petition is allowed.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
July 21, 2009
Pankaj*