IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Writ Petition No. 1209 of 2007. Reserved on: 16.10.2008. Decided on: 22.10.2008. __________________________________________________ Shri Muni Lal .… Petitioner Versus The State of H.P. and another. .… Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Ms. Leena Guleria, Advocate vice Mr.G.R. Palsara, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G.. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. A challenge has been laid to the award dated 8.6.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, H.P. Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala in reference No. 86 of 2005. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the State Government has made the following reference to the Labour Court: “Whether the termination of services of Shri Muni Lal s/o Shri Mast Ram workman by the Executive Engineer, I&PH Division, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. w.e.f. 16.12.2000 without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is proper and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits and compensation the above aggrieved workman is entitled to?” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 In sequel to the reference made by the State Government, the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the workman for convenience sake) filed a statement of claim. He had primarily contended that his retrenchment effected on 16.12.2002 is a nullity since the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have not been complied with. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the employer for convenience sake) has contested the claim. It was primarily contended by the employer that the workman was engaged in the month of March 1982 and he worked up to June 1987 and thereafter, he again worked for a certain period and he filed the Original Application bearing O.A. (M) No. 721 of 1995 before the learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal. The learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal granted the interim relief on 8.9.1995 pursuant to which he was re-engaged on 21.9.1995. The O.A. was dismissed on 7.3.2002 and thereafter, vide office order dated 16.12.2002 the services of the petitioner were terminated. The learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal on the basis of the evidence led by the parties rejected the claim petition on 8.6.2007. Ms. Leena Guleria, Advocate appearing vice Mr. G.R. Palsara, Advocate has strenuously argued that the award dated 8.6.2007 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. She has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure P-4 whereby the workman had completed 240 days preceding his retrenchment i.e. 16.12.2002. In fact, the workman had completed 351 days w.e.f. 1.1.2002 to 31.12.2002. Ms. Guleria then contended that since the workman had completed 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months 3 preceding 16.12.2002, it was necessary for the employer to comply with Section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the workman had worked in three different spells, i.e. March 1982 to June 1987 and thereafter, in the year 1995 and finally he was re- engaged pursuant to the directions dated 8.9.1995 issued by the learned Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 721 of 1995 w.e.f. 20.9.1995 to 17.12.2002. His precise contention is that for the period the workman has worked pursuant to the directions of the learned State Administrative Tribunal could not be counted for calculating the days under Section 25-B of the Act. I have heard the parties and perused the record. There is no dispute that the workman was engaged earlier in the month of March 1982 and he worked upto June 1987. He was re-engaged in the year 1995. He assailed his retrenchment effected in the year 1995 vide O.A. (M) No. 721 of 1995 before the learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal. The learned Administrative Tribunal on 8.9.1995 passed the interim order directing his re- engagement. He was re-engaged by the employer on 20.9.1995. The learned HP Administrative Tribunal dismissed the Original Application preferred by the workman for want of jurisdiction. This led to the issuance of office order dated 16.12.2002. The workman has appeared before the learned Administrative Tribunal and he has also filed his affidavit. The sum and substance of the workman’s case before the learned Labour Court was that he had completed 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months before his retrenchment on 16.12.2002. The employer had placed on record the copy of mandays chart of one 4 Shri Mann Singh before the learned Labour Court. The employer should have placed on record the mandays chart of the workman, who had filed the claim petition before the learned Labour Court. It is evident from Annexure P-4 placed on record with this petition that the workman had completed 362 days in the year 1996, 349 days in the year 1997, 357 days in the year 1998, 325 days in the year 1999, 309 days in the year 2000, 365 days in the year 201 and 351 days in the year 2002. It is evident from Annexure P-4 supplied by the employer to the workman that he completed 240 days preceding his retrenchment. The employer was duty bound to issue show cause notice to the workman or to pay compensation to him. Admittedly, neither any notice has been issued to the workman nor any compensation was paid to him. It was the duty cast upon the learned Labour Court to call upon the Management to file the mandays chart of the workman instead of Shri Mann Singh. The learned Labour Court only on the basis of the mandays chart of Shri Mann Singh has come to the conclusion that the workman had not completed 240 days preceding his retrenchment. One Shri Amar Chand was also re-engaged after the orders passed by the learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 720 of 1995. The learned Labour Court has granted relief to the similarly situated workmen as per the details given in paragraph 4 of the petition. These averments have not been denied by the employer/State in its reply. The averment contained in the reply to this paragraph is that the matter was under examination with the Labour Department and action would be taken accordingly. The judicial and quasi-judicial authorities are liable to pass consistent orders based on the same and the similar facts. It is evident from 5 the pleadings of the parties that the case of the petitioner was at par with the other workmen whose details are given in paragraph 4 of the petition. However, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the basis of the mandays chart of Shri Mann Singh and not of the petitioner. The Court has seen the original record. Admittedly, instead of mandays chart of the petitioner-Shri Muni Lal, the mandays chart of Shri Mann Singh has been filed by the employer before the learned Labour Court. There is no force in this contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that no notice was required to be issued to the workman under Section 25 (F) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 since the workman was engaged pursuant to the orders dated 8.9.1995 passed by the learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal. It is true that the workman was re-engaged on 20.9.1995 on the basis of order dated 8.9.1995. However, the fact of the matter is that he has continuously worked from 20.9.1995 to 16.12.2002 and has completed 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months each calendar year. He has completed 240 days preceding his date of retrenchment, i.e. 16.12.2002. The Original Application preferred by the workman was dismissed on 7.1.2002 and the office order whereby the petitioner has been terminated is dated 16.12.2002. He had continued to work for eleven months even after the dismissal of his petition on 7.1.2002. The learned Labour Court is required to see whether the workman had completed the requisite days as required under Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Labour Court should have granted the same relief to the petitioner- 6 workman which has been granted to similarly situated workmen, as noticed above. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed and the award dated 8.6.2007 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. to decide the matter afresh on the basis of Annexure P-4 and Annexure P-8 respectively within a period of three months from today. The parties are directed to make themselves available before the learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala on November 3, 2008. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. October 22, 2008. (cr)