Superintending Engineer vs Shankuntla Devi

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Petitioners-employers (herein after referred to as ''employers'' for brevity sake) have assailed award dated 6.12.2013, rendered by learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala (herein after referred to as ''Labour Court'' for convenience sake) in reference No. 48/2013.

Pertinent facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent-workman (herein after referred to as ''workman'' for brevity sake) was engaged in July 1998. She was retrenched in November 1999 without complying the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as ''Act'' for convenience sake). Workman raised industrial dispute. State Government made following reference to the Labour Court:

Whether termination of the services of Miss Shakuntla Devi D/O Sh. Sher Singh, VPO Baloh, Tehsil Bhoranj, Distt. Hamirpur, H.P. by i) the Superintending Engineer, HPPWD Circle, Hamirpur, H.P. ii) The Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Touni Devi, Distt. Hamirpur, H.P. during November, 1999 without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employer?

Workman filed statement of claim. According to the workman, she had completed 240 days preceding her retrenchment in the year November 1999. Neither any notice was issued nor compensation was paid to her at the time of retrenchment of the workman. Prithi Chand, junior to the workman was retained in service. Employer has engaged Anu Bala after her retrenchment.

The employer filed reply to the claim. According to the reply, workman abandoned her job and further she did not complete 240 days. There was no violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act.

Labour Court made award on 6.12.2013. Termination of the workman was set aside. Employer was directed to reinstate workman forthwith. She was held entitled to seniority and continuity in service, except for back wages. Labour Court directed the employer to consider the case of workman for regularization of her services as per the policies of the State Government. It was also ordered that in case services of any person junior to the workman were regularized, workman was also entitle for regularization from said date and month when her juniors were regularized. Hence, this petition.

Mr. Ramesh Thakur, learned Assistant Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the workman has abandoned her job and has not completed 240 days and that there is no violation of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully.

Workman has appeared as PW-1. She has led her evidence by filing affidavit Ex. PW-1/A. She has reiterated the contents of petition and statement of claim. In her cross-examination she has denied the suggestion that she left the job. Shri Ramesh Kumar Sharma, appeared as RW-1. He has led his evidence vide annexure R-1/1 and corroborated the contents of the reply. RW-1 has admitted in his cross-examination that when workman abandoned the job, no notice was given to the workman asking her to resume her duties and persons junior to the workman were working under them. He has admitted that after 1999 new/fresh hands were engaged. It is clear from the manday''s chart of the workman, RW-1/B that she had completed 240 days preceding her retrenchment. It has also come on record that Rakesh Kumar was appointed in September 1998 and workman was engaged in July 1998. One Anu Bala has been engaged on 24.7.2000, after retrenchment of workman. Thus, it is conclusively stands proved that the employer has violated Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. The workman has not been issued any notice u/s 25F. RW-1 has admitted that no notice was given to the workman to resume her duties. Workman was never given any opportunity to be re-engaged when Anu Bala was engaged. Rakesh Kumar was junior to her.

The workman has made representation against her retrenchment on 7.5.2000 and thereafter on 11.2.2010. The dispute was kept alive by her. Moreover, the employer has not challenged the reference. Accordingly, there is neither any delay nor laches in raising the industrial dispute.

Accordingly, there is neither any irregularity nor any illegality in the order passed by the learned Labour Court. The scope of judicial review to interfere with the award is limited.

In view of the discussion and analysis made hereinabove, the petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.