C.W.P No.1046 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P No.1046 of 2009
Date of Decision: 04.08.2009
Rajesh Kumar .....Petitioner
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Panipat and another
....Respondents
Present: Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
for respondent No.2.
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?Yes
-.-
K. KANNAN J.
1. A Beldar working in PWD (B&R) Circle, Karnal on a
temporary basis since 01.07.1999 was terminated from his service on
01.04.2000. The complaint against his termination through demand
notice had resulted in reference to the Labour Court for consideration
whether the termination was illegal and whether the workman was
entitled to any relief. The Labour Court found that he had not
completed 240 days of service to merit consideration of his plea and
rejected the reference.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the
Labour Court was in error in not making a proper reckoning of his
services in various units of the same Department and if the services at
C.W.P No.1046 of 2009 -2-
various Divisions had been taken, it could be seen that he had
completed 240 days of service. The contention of the workman is
repelled by the management and Learned counsel appearing for the
State, Sh. Nalwa points out that there were various Sub Divisions,
which were under the control of the Superintending Engineer and the
appointments had been done at the divisional levels. All the services
in various Sub Divisions cannot be added as constituting continuous
service. He refers to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Om Pal (2007) 2 SCC
(L&S)255, which laid down that employment of a daily wager/casual
employee in different establishments, even under the same employer
or controlling authority, would not amount to his being in continuous
service. The Hon’ble Supreme Court reasoned that it might be
possible that various Divisions employed the same workman at
different periods without knowing the period of engagement in yet
another Division and the head of the institution cannot be burdened
with a situation where the periods of engagement in various Divisions
could be treated as a single employment. By the finding that the
appointments had not been shown to have been made by the same
authority and that they had been issued by three different Sub
Divisions separately, the claim of the workman could not be accepted.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman points
out that he had applied before the competent authority under the RTI
Act for information about who had made the respective appointments
to the petitioner at various times and the information that has been
supplied has been put in Court to show that no separate appointment
C.W.P No.1046 of 2009 -3-
letters had been issued against the sanction issued by the
Superintending Engineer but he was merely being appointed on
contract basis. The information secured through the RTI Authority
does not prove either way whether the appointment had been made
directly by the same office of the Superintending Engineer. In the
absence of clear evidence regarding how the workman had been
appointed in various Divisions, it cannot be assumed by the only fact
that the controlling authority was the same person that the service in
all the Divisions must be counted singly to merit acceptance of the
claim of the workman. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
referred to above squarely answers the issue.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the workman also advanced
arguments to the effect that workman was entitled to reinstatement by
virtue of the fact that the termination was bad. Having regard to the
finding that the employment in three Divisions at various times cannot
be counted as a single employment, I do not find it necessary to
consider the other issue whether there is any right to reinstatement for
a daily-rated worker who not even shown to have completed 240 days
of service. All the authorities cited by him which deal with non-
compliance of Section 25-F will have no bearing to this case since in
the first place no case has been made out that there was any statutory
violation.
5. The writ petition consequently fails and dismissed
accordingly. No costs.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
August 04 , 2009
Pankaj*