IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.1387/2005 Decided on.24.3.2008 Secretary, H.P.S.E.B. and another. …Petitioners. Versus Gulab Singh & others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the petitioners : Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. Rahul Mahajan, vice Mr. Vishal Panwar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Per Rajiv Sharma, J. This petition has been directed against the award dated 25.5.2005 passed by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala in reference No.31/2003 (RBT No.54/04). Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the State Government has made the following reference to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal: “Whether the termination of services of Sh. Gulab Singh son of Sh. Nikka Ram w.e.f. 31.3.1994 by the Executive Engineer, HPSEB, Division Anni, District Kullu without any notice and compensation is proper and justified, if not, what relief of service benefit s the above workman is entitled to?” 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the workman for convenience sake) filed his statement of claim before the Labour Court primarily contending therein that he was engaged as a Beldar by the employer on 13th December, 1994 and he worked in the same capacity up to 26th July, 1995 and was retrenched without following clause 14 (2) of the Standing Orders framed by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board under the provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing order) Act, 1946. The employer resisted the claim filed by the workman by filing reply to the statement of claim. The Labour Court passed the award on 25.5.2005 in affirmative holding the workman entitled to reinstatement on the same terms and conditions in which he was working prior to his dis- engagement. Mr. Baldev Singh had strenuously argued that the Labour Court has committed illegality by deciding the award on the basis of the Standing Orders framed by the Board under the provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing order) Act, 1946 since according to him the Standing Orders have ceased to apply to the employees/workmen of the Board from the year 1992. He clarified that after the year 1992, the conditions of service of the workmen of the Board are to be regulated and governed under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate vice counsel for the petitioner had supported the award passed by the Labour Court. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. The workman was engaged on 13th December, 1994 and he worked up to 26th July, 1995. The Labour Court had decided the award on wrong premise by relying upon the Standing orders framed by the Board under the provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing order) Act, 1946. 3 It is not disputed by the parties before us that the Standing Orders framed under the provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing order) Act, 1946 had ceased to apply with effect from 22.8.1992. The State Government had issued notification whereby provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing order) Act, 1946 were made applicable to any industrial establishment employing fifty or more persons but less than one hundred on any day of preceding 12 months on 22.10.1983. The text of the notification dated 22.10.1983 reads thus: “No.4-2/82-Shram-Whereas the proposal to apply the Provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946 (Act No.2 of 1946) to any industrial establishment employing fifty or more persons but less than one hundred on any day of preceding twelve months was published in the Rajpatra, Himachal Pradesh, dated the 2nd April, 1983 vide notification of even number dated 26th February, 1983/4th March, 1983. And whereas, no objections/suggestions have been received in this respect. Now therefore, in exercise of Powers conferred by proviso to sub section 3 of section 1 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946 (Act No.20 of 1946), the Governor of Himachal Pradesh, is pleased to apply with immediate effect the provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing Order), Act, 1947 (Act No. 20 of 1946) to any industrial establishment employing fifty or more persons but less than one hundred on any day of the preceding twelve months.” However, vide notification dated 22.8.1992 in exercise of the powers conferred under section 14 of the Industrial Employment (Standing order) Act, 1946, the Governor of Himachal Pradesh was pleased to exempt the establishment of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board 4 from all the provisions of the said Act. The notification dated 22.8.1992 reads thus: “Dated 22.8.92, P-1180 Shimla 2, 11th September, 1985. No. 12-5/85-Shram-In exercise of the powers conferred by him under section 14 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946 (Act No.XX 1946), the Governor of Himachal Pradesh is pleased to exempt the establishment of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board from all the provisions of the said Act.” Once the Standing Orders had ceased to apply and the service conditions of the workmen are to be regulated under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court could not pass the award on the basis of Clause 14 (2) of the Standing Orders framed by the Board under the Industrial Employment (Standing order) Act, 1946. Consequently, we allow this writ petition. The award passed by the Labour Court dated 25.5.2005 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Labour court to decide the reference afresh in accordance with law within a period of 6 months. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 22.5.2008. There shall be no order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. ( Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 24.3.2008 *Awasthi*