Allowed

District Education Officer v. Rohtas and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Mar 2011CWP/5829/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Full Bench decision held that a part time worker is a workman but a contractual employee not entitled to benefits under Chapter VA and VB. The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Labour Court award which had reinstated the part time worker.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed and the impugned award of the Labour Court was set aside.

District Education Officer Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

C.W.P. No.5829 of 2007 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

C.W.P. No.5829 of 2007

¶4

DATE OF DECISION : 18.3.2011

¶5

The District Education Officer, Rohtak PETITIONER

VERSUS

Rohtas and another

RESPONDENTS

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present:Shri Harish Rathee, Senior D.A.G. Haryana for the petitioner/State. Shri Devinder Singh, Advocate for respondent-1.

¶11

MAHESH GROVER, J.

¶12

The petitioner has impugned the award of the Labour Court, Rohtak dated 1.2.2006. The respondent/workman claimed a reference under Section 10(1) (c) of the Industrial Disputs, Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the following effect :-

¶13

“Whether termination of services of Shri Rohtas is justified or not, to what relief he is entitled to ?”

¶14

The respondent/workman had raised a demand on 8.5.2000 and alleged that he was appointed as a Part Time Water Carrier in the Govt. High

¶15

C.W.P. No.5829 of 2007 -2-

¶16

School, Kakrana on 8.2.1999, that he was employed through Employment Exchange, Kalanaur and his work and conduct was satisfactory, but despite that, his services were terminated on 30.3.2000 verbally and without assigning any reason. He pleaded that he was appointed against a regular post and had completed more than 240 days of service and his termination was illegal without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. He further pleaded that since persons juniors to him have been permitted to work, therefore, there was violation of the provisions of Section 25G and 25H of the Act.

¶17

The petitioner pleaded that it was not an industry and the respondent was not a workman. The workman was appointed as a Water Carrier for a period of only 2 hours a day and he used to work only 10 months in a year on the rates fixed by the D.C.,Rohtak and was paid from the contingency fund. Sanction to employ the petitioner ceased on 28.2.2000 and consequently, his services were dispensed with. 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.

¶18

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent/workman had completed 240 days of service and his termination was illegal and it was done without compliance of the provisions of the Act. It then directed reinstatement of the respondent/workman along with 50% of the back wages from the date of demand notice.

¶19

Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶20

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.

¶21

The Full Bench of this Court has since rendered the decision on 22.5.2008 and it has been concluded as under :-

¶22

C.W.P. No.5829 of 2007 -3-

¶23

“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, 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.”

¶24

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.

¶25

Ordered accordingly.

¶26

March 18, 2011 GD

¶27

(MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE

¶28

WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO

District Education Officer v. Rohtas and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

District Education Officer v. Rohtas and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chattar Singh Vs M.a.C.T., Hisar and Others

Vidya Devi Vs Ravinder Saini

Teja Singh Vs Ranbir Singh

Jasmat and Anr. Vs Partap and Ors.

Buta Singh Vs Amarjit Singh and Ors.

Tara Chand and Anr. Vs Shiv Lal and Ors.