State of Himachal Pradesh vs Sunil Kumar

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the ''employer'' for convenience sake) have challenged the award dated 30.5.2011 rendered in Reference No. 51/2006 by the learned Presiding Judge, H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala.

"Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent-workman (hereinafter referred to as the ''workman'' for convenience sake) was engaged as Beldar in the month of November, 1997. He was retrenched on 1.2.2001. He challenged his termination order dated 1.2.2001 by filing O.A. No. (M)114/2001. It was dismissed for want of jurisdiction on 27.2.2002. Thereafter, workman raised industrial dispute. Reply was filed to the same. The matter was referred by the Labour Commissioner to the Labour Court on 20.3.2006.

The workman filed claim petition, to which reply was filed by the employer. According to the workman, he was retrenched without complying the provisions of section 25(G) and (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to him, persons junior to him, namely, Piar Chand, Dhameshwar, Parma Ram, Malti Devi, Narain Singh and Nand Kishore were retained by the employer. Learned Labour Court decided the reference vide award dated 30.5.2011. The reference was partly allowed by the Labour Court. The employer was directed to reengage the petitioner forthwith. He was held entitled to seniority and continuity from the date of his illegal termination, though except back wages. Hence, the present petition.

Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that there was delay and laches in raising the industrial dispute. He then contended that workman has not completed 240 days preceding his retrenchment.

I have heard Mr. Anup Rattan and have gone through the pleadings and award dated 30.5.2011 carefully.

What emerges from the pleadings is that the workman was engaged in the month of November, 1997. He was retrenched on 1.2.2001. He had completed 235 days preceding his retrenchment. However, fact of the matter is that the persons junior to him, namely, Piar Chand, Dhameshwar, Parma Ram, Malti Devi, Narain Singh and Nand Kishore have been retained while terminating the services of the workman. It has also come on record that the persons junior to the workman were engaged and regularized by the employer as per seniority list Ex. P-1. There was breach of mandatory provisions of sections 25(G) and (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

It was also projected before the Labour Court that the workman has abandoned his job. This plea was not proved. There was only bald statement of RW-1 Sh. D.R. Shashni, Executive Engineer to this effect. The Labour Court after perusing the seniority list Ex. P-1 and admission of Ex. RW-1 has rightly come to the conclusion that employer had retained many persons junior to the workman. The workman was not required to complete 240 days in order to get the benefit of section 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The scope of judicial review in these matters is very limited. The Labour Court has taken a correct view while allowing the award.

Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.