IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6089 of 2010 along with CWP Nos. 6090, 6091, 6099 and 6100 of 2010 Date of decision: 28.9.2010 1. CWP No. 6089 of 2010 H.P.S.E.B. & Anr. Vs. Dharam Dass and Anr. 2. CWP No. 6090 of 2010 H.P.S.E.B. & Anr. Vs. Amar Singh and Anr. 3. CWP No. 6091 of 2010 H.P.S.E.B. & Anr. Vs. Deep Ram and Anr. 4. CWP No. 6099 of 2010 H.P.S.E.B. & Anr. Vs. Chet Ram and Anr. 5. CWP No. 6100 of 2010 H.P.S.E.B. & Anr. Vs. Mohinder Lal and Anr. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the petitioner (s) : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent (s) : Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.1 (in all the petitions). Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This judgment shall dispose of CWP Nos. 6089, 6090, 6091, 6099 and 6100 of 2010 as common question of law and facts are involved in all the writ petitions. 2 2. The workmen/respondent No.1 in all the petitions were petitioners in reference No.59 of 2007 answered by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court , Shimla by way of award dated 1.6.2010. In the petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing , setting-aside the award dated 1.6.2010. 3. The case projected by the petitioners is that the workmen had filed Original Applications in the erstwhile Tribunal against their terminations which were dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter, the services of workmen were dispensed with after service of notice. The workmen assailed the orders of the Tribunal in the High Court. In pursuance of the order of the High Court, the workmen were re-engaged. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the workmen with a direction to approach the appropriate Forum. Thereafter, the services of the workmen were terminated after proper notice. 4. The appropriate Government had sent the reference for adjudication as under:- “Whether the termination of services of (1) Shri Amar Singh S/o Shri Duli Chand, (2) Shri Deep Ram S/o Shri Atma Ram, (3) Shri Chet Ram S/o Sh. Agru Ram, (4) Shri Dharam Dass S/o Shri Barfia Ram and Shri Mohinder Lal S/o Shri Sita Ram workmen by the Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, HPSEB Sunni, Tehsil Sunni, District Shimla, H.P. w.e.f.07.07.2005 and 13.05.2005 without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 whereas junior to them are retained by the employer as alleged by the workmen is proper and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits and amount of compensation, the above aggrieved workmen are entitled to?” 5. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court allowed the Reference No. 59 of 2007 on 1.6.2010 and ordered that petitioners therein be reinstated in service with seniority and continuity but without back wages from the date of their termination w.e.f. 7.4.2005 3 (petitioner No.1, 2 & 3 in reference Petition No. 59 of 2007) and 13.5.2005 (petitioner No. 4 & 5 in reference petition No.59 of 2007). 6. The award dated 1.6.2010 has been assailed by the petitioners on the grounds that workman respondent No.1 in each petition was engaged against specific work and the workman in each petition had not completed 240 days continuous service in preceding calendar year on the date his services came to an end on completion of specific work. No notice or compensation was required to be given to workman. In these circumstances, the engagement of respondent No.1 in each petition came to an end automatically. The Board had not retained any junior person except those persons who were ordered to be retained by the Court. The impugned award has caused great hardship to the petitioners inasmuch as there are no vacancies where the workmen can be adjusted. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court has not properly appreciated the pleadings and evidence on record. The impugned award is based on surmises and conjectures and wrong application of law. A prayer has been made for setting-aside the impugned award. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. On behalf of the petitioners the learned counsel has reiterated the stand taken by the petitioners in the writ petition. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman respondent No.1 in each petition has submitted that the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court after appreciation of material on record has recorded a finding of fact. There is no illegality in the impugned award. This Court is not considering the matter in appeal, the relief granted in the impugned award is just and reasonable and therefore, no interference is required in any petition. 8. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court under issues No.1 & 2 has recorded a finding of fact that services of the workmen were terminated without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘Act’). It has also been held that 4 juniors to respondent No.1 in each petition were retained. The Tribunal has considered the statements of PW1 to PW-5. RW-1 A.C. Brice has stated that workmen had completed 240 days in a calendar year . He has also admitted that the department had not issued any notices to workmen when their services were terminated. He has placed on record mandays chart of the workmen. He has specifically named one Jiya Lal, who is junior to workmen and was retained in service and was not engaged by the order of the Court. 9. The Tribunal has recorded a specific finding that workmen had completed 240 days in preceding 12 calendar months from the dates when their services were terminated. The Tribunal has also held that the services of workmen were terminated in violation of the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act. The petitioners have failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned award which goes to the root of the case. The Tribunal has granted just and equitable relief, continuity in service and seniority has been allowed to the workmen while ordering their reinstatement without back wages. There is no merit in the petitions. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed. The pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. September 28, 2010 (Justice Kuldip Singh), (grs) Judge.