IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 23.09.2025 The Secretary, H.S.E.B. Panchkula and others …Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(ORAL)

1. The petitioner/Management Haryana State Electricity Board, now known as ‘Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited’ (HVPNL), fetching grievance from the award dated 02.02.1998 (Annexure P-4), passed by the learned Tribunal concerned, wherethrough, the reference was answered in favour of the workman, on account of infraction of Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the ID Act’). Consequently, the relief of re-instatement in service, on those very terms and conditions, including his tenure of work and wages, as on 05.12.1994, was granted. The challenge is thrown to the award (supra), by the petitioner/Management, on the ground that the respondent No.2/workman was only appointed as a Water Carrier, and he has been working with the Management, only two hours a day, as per the sanctions, and therefore, the respondent No.2/workman, does not fall within the ambit of definition of workman.

2. Succinctly, the respondent No.2/workman, filed a claim petition, stating therein, that he was employed by the petitioner in the year 1986, to work as a ‘Water Carrier’, on payment of Rs.180/- per month, and initially, he was employed, as a part time worker, but later on, converted as a full time worker. It was alleged that he has been working eight hours in a day.

However, he was paid wages of Rs.180/- per month, only.

3. The petitioner/Management, upon notice in the claim petition, took a preliminary objection, to the effect, that since respondent No.2/workman was a part time worker, therefore, he does not fall within the ambit of definition of workman. The learned Tribunal concerned, came to the conclusion that the respondent No.2/workman falls within the ambit of definition of workman, and accordingly, decided the reference in favour of the workman, as explained above.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Management submits, that the respondent No.2/workman, worked only for two hours in a day, and therefore, he cannot possibly complete 240 days, in the preceding year. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Full Bench of this Court, titled ‘Gobind versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another’ in CWP-4660 of 1999 Law Finder doc ID #1229524, decided on 22.05.2008, to submit that this aspect has already been considered, and therefore, the respondent No.2, being a part time worker, would fall within the definition of workman, as postulated under Section 2 (s) of the ID Act. However, nature of his employment will be that of contractual employee, and in case of termination of his services, he would not be entitled to get any benefit under the provisions of Chapter VA and VB of the ID Act. The relevant observations of the judgment (supra), is extracted hereinafter:-

“51. In paragraph No. 6 of the judgment, referred to above, if we calculate the number of days on which the part time worker had worked, it comes to more than 240 days in 12 months preceding the date of his termination. But by noting that the worker had worked only for one or two hours in a day, the Hon. Supreme Court has virtually said that claim of the worker, to say that he has worked for 240 days, to claim benefit under the I.D. Act, was not justified.

52. In view of facts mentioned above, we can safely say that a part time worker, who works only for a part of the day, will not be in a position to complete even fictional year as envisaged under section 258 of the LD. Act ie. 240 days in 12 months preceding the relevant date. Not only this, we feel that it will be very difficult to give any