The termination of workmen's services constituted retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and compliance with Section 25-F regarding the calculation of 240 days of service is mandatory.

1. All the above-stated writ petitions have been taken up together for hearing.

2. These petitions have been preferred by the petitioners-workmen questioning the legality of awards dated 31.8.2005 passed by respondent No. 1 separately by virtue of which their claims have been dismissed. Since identical questions of law and fact are involved in all these petitions, we propose to dispose of by this common judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience, we are taking facts of CWP No.19255 of 2005 only.

4. According to the petitioner-workman Dhani Ram, his services were engaged by respondents No. 2 and 3-department as Beldar on 9.3.1993. His services were terminated w.e.f. 1.4.1996 without assigning any reason. He raised an industrial dispute. On failure of re-conciliation proceedings, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court. The petitioner-workman filed claim statement before the Labour Court alleging adoption of unfair labour practice while terminating his service by the department. Moreover, it has been claimed by the petitioner that his services were been terminated without issuing any notice and without affording any opportunity of personal hearing.

5. The claim of the petitioner was contested by the department. Their stand was that the services of the petitioner-workman, who was only a daily wager and whose services were engaged as per requirement of work, can be dispensed with as per Para 1.1 (4) of the PWD Specification, 1990, which provides for dispensation of service of a daily wager without issuing any notice or assigning any reason. Therefore, the workman being a daily wager is not entitled to any retrenchment compensation. Moreover, workman is not entitled to regularization as he did not fulfill any of the conditions contained in Haryana Governments letters dated 7.3.1996 and 18.3.1996. The petitioner filed re-joinder controverting the stand taken by the department in their reply and reiterated the averments made by him in the claim statement.

6. After analyzing the evidence adduced by both the parties as well as material place before it, the Labour Court vide the impugned award dated 31.8.2005 held that it was not the termination of the services of the petitioner-workman as he used to work with the department as per requirement. Further, relying upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court re: Executive Engineer (State of Karnataka v. K. Somasetty 1997 (3) SCT-277), the Labour Court held that since the petitioner was employed for carrying out the work on specific project, he cannot claim re-instatement with back wages even though he had completed 240 days. Accordingly, as noticed above, the Labour Court dismissed the claim of the petitioner workman.

7. So far as CWP Nos. 19273 and 19276 of 2005 are concerned, they are also containing the similar pleadings and the Labour Court while dismissing their claim returned the similar findings, as has been noticed above in CWP No. 19255 of 2005 Upon notice of the petition, respondents No. 2 and 3 filed their joint written statement. It has been submitted that the services of petitioner were not terminated on 1.4.1996, as alleged rather he worked on various roads up to 15.2.2000. Thereafter, he left the job at his own. Similar stand has been taken by respondents No. 2 and 3 in their written statement filed separately to CWP Nos. 19273 and 19276 of 2005. Thus, dismissal of all the writ petitions has been sought.

8. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the paper book carefully. The very stand of the respondent-department was that the petitioners-workmen had been engaged for doing temporary nature of work, on temporary muster rolls, on daily wages, as per requirement and when work ceased to exist their services were dispensed with. It was further stand of the department that there were Government instructions dated 7.3.1996 and 18.3.1996 to regularize the daily rated employees, who had completed three ye