ORDER

Assailing the order dated 11.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition No.14651 of 2016, the writ petitioner is in appeal.

2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was engaged as a peon on a vacant and sanctioned post in Bilaspur Branch of Punjab and Sind Bank with effect from 01.08.1982 and was paid remuneration on daily wages treating him to be a temporary employee. On 20.02.1991, the respondent/Bank called applications through advertisement for permanent absorption of those temporary peons who have put in minimum service of 90 days in the respondent/Bank after 01.01.1982. The writ petitioner applied for the same. The claim of the writ petitioner was considered by the respondent/Bank and he was placed at Serial No.1 in the list of temporary employees who were falling in the zone of consideration. However, the respondents conferred the permanent status to those employees who were much junior to the writ petitioner and no reasons have been assigned for the same. Writ petitioner approached the authorities but to no consequence. On 07.06.1999, a negotiation meeting was held and the claim of the writ petitioner was raised and discussed and it was found that the writ petitioner had already completed 240 days of continuous service in the respondent/Bank department. The recommendation was made by the Branch Manager on 18.05.2001, and an application was forwarded to the Head Office along with the recommendation. Despite of the same, he was not considered for regularization of his services. The writ petitioner continued to work on the nominal payment with the hope that his services will be permanently absorbed but vide order dated 18.08.2001, the respondent/Bank terminated the services of the writ petitioner orally without any notice or compensation. The writ petitioner raised the industrial dispute which was sent for conciliation but as no amicable settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the same was referred to the Tribunal, for adjudication. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the action of the respondent/Bank in terminating the services of the writ petitioner was illegal. However, while passing an order dated 14.03.2016 directed for payment of a meager compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the writ petitioner, denying reinstatement in service observing that the writ petitioner was engaged on daily wages and he was not appointed following the recruitment process. The same was put to challenge by filling a writ petition. The writ court failed to consider the aspect that the initial appointment of the writ petitioner was after following the due procedure.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. It is seen from the record that the writ petitioner's initially induction in the service was on temporary basis as a daily wager. He continued to work as a daily wager as a peon. His case was sent for consideration for permanent absorption in services but he could not be absorbed. Subsequently, his services were terminated which was put to challenge by him by raising an industrial dispute. The evidence available on record pointed out that the workman was engaged temporarily on daily wages but as he has continued to work for a long time and his services were terminated without notice and without paying any retrenchment compensation, the same was found to be illegal by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the termination order was set aside but as far as reinstatement of the writ petitioner is concerned, the workman was required to demonstrate that he was not in gainful employment. Without there being any evidence with respect to gainful employment, the decision taken by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal directing for payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement was just and proper. Heavy burden lies upon the workman to show that during the intervening period he was not under any gainful employment.

VS. Bhurumal reported in (2014)