CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2000) 12 P&H CK 0077

The Executive Engineer, Haryana Police, Housing Court, Rohtak vs Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 11 December 2000

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.S. Sudhalkar, J · Mehtab S. Gill, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 16951 of 2000

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 360 words

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—In this writ petition, the employer is challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 14.7.2000 vide which respondent No. 2 was ordered to be reinstated in service with 40% back wages.

2.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent No. 2 was appointed only for a period of six months for a particular work and when that work was over he could not continue. The appointment order is at Annexure P/2 which is as under :-

ORDER

"Sh. Dalip Sharma s/o Sh. Satpal Sharma resident of House No. 168, Ward No. 10, Near Sadar Thana, Rohtak is hereby appointed as full time fixed charge paid Chowkidar & Rs. 1000/- (Rs. One thousand only) as fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak on the work constg. Residential quarters at Meham for a period ofsix months to be reckoned from the date of joining w.e.f. 18.7.1994. His services shall be liable to be terminated at any time without notice if his work and conduct is not found satisfactory or the post against which he is appointed ceased to exist."

The aforesaid order was passed by Executive Engineer (Projects) Haryaha Police Housing Corporation Limited, Gurgaon.

3.

The case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 was employed only for the construction work at Meham. Though the petitioner might have been engaged for work at Meham, he was given some other work also after that work was over, therefore, his appointment cannot be restricted for that particular work.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that appointment was for a specific period of six months and after that period he has no right. However, it can be seen that the workman had completed more than 240 days and this fact was even admitted before the Labour Court. If he had worked for more than 240 days, he had certainly worked for more than 6 months and the Labour Court has thus rightly not relied on Annexure P/2.

In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the award of the Labour court. This writ petition is, therefore, without merit and is dismissed.

5.

Petition dismissed