IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 5606/2011 Decided on:21.9.2011 _____________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Petitioners. Versus Nokh Ram. …Respondent. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood,Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K.Verma, Dy. A.G. For the Respondent : Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). State has assailed the award dated 23.7.2010 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in reference No. 151 of 2007. 2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent-workman (hereinafter referred to as the ‘workman’ for convenience sake) was engaged on 1.12.1998. He was retrenched on 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 30.11.1998. He raised the industrial dispute, which led to making of reference by the State Government to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal. 3. The workman has appeared as PW-1. According to him, he had completed 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding his retrenchment and persons junior to him, namely, Joginder Singh, Kewal Ram, Mehar Singh, Thakur Dass and Hira Lal were engaged after his retrenchment. 4. Ashok Kumar has appeared as RW-1 on behalf of State Government. He has admitted that Joginder Singh, Kewal Ram, Mehar Singh and Thakur Dass were junior to the workman but were engaged after the retrenchment of the workman. The workman has relied upon Ex.PA to substantiate that persons junior to him were engaged and he was not asked to resume his duties. It has come on record as per the muster-roll that the workman has not completed 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months upto 30.11.1998. Thus, there is no violation of provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. However, as far as the violation of sections 25 (G) and (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is concerned, the workman need not complete 240 days in 3 a block of 12 calendar months before his retrenchment. The Labour Court has come to a right conclusion that since persons junior to him have been engaged, he was required to be given an opportunity before engaging them. The Labour Court has only awarded the reinstatement of the workman with seniority, but has not awarded back-wages. There is no perversity in the award of the Labour Court. The scope of judicial review in such like matter is very limited. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 21.9.2011 *awasthi*