IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.: 953 of 2005. Decided on: 28.07.2008. The State of H.P. and Others. … … Petitioners. Versus Shri Mohan Singh. … … Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General. For the Respondent: Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. . Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): A challenge has been laid by way of this petition to the award passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, dated 1.6.2005 in reference No.249 of 2001 (RBT No.310/2004). The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the workman for convenience sake) has raised an industrial dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity). The State Government made the following reference to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala:- Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - “Whether termination of service of Shri Mohan Singh, son of Shri Ghaler Ram by the Range Officer, Jogindernagar, w.e.f. 1.10.1991 without compliance of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal or illegal? If illegal, to what relief of service benefits, backwages and compensation of amount Shri Mohan Singh is entitled to?” In sequel to the reference made by the State Government, the workman filed a claim petition stating therein that he was employed by the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the employer for convenience sake) w.e.f. 3rd July, 1987 to 30th September, 1991 and he was retrenched without following the mandatory provisions of the Act on 1st October, 1991. He has specifically averred in his claim petition that he had competed 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months preceding his retrenchment on 1.10.1991. The employer contested and resisted the claim by filing reply. The principal stand of the employer in the reply was that the workman was not retrenched; rather he had abandoned his job. The learned Labour Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties passed the award on 1.6.2005. The employer has assailed this award dated 1.6.2005. The learned Additional Advocate General had strenuously argued that the award dated 1.6.2005 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He then argued that the reference made by the State Government was belated. On the other hand, Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj had supported the award dated 1.6.2005. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The workman has appeared as PW-1. He has deposed that he was engaged as daily waged Chowkidar by the employer w.e.f. 3.7.1987 to 30.9.1991 and he was retrenched on 1.10.1991 without - 3 - issuing any notice and retrenchment compensation. He also made representations against his retrenchment vide Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6. The employer has produced Ravinder Kumar, Deputy Ranger as RW-1. He has produced on record the man-days chart Ex.R-X. He has categorically admitted that the workman had worked for 150 days in the year 1987, 347 days in 1988, 261 days in 1989, 328 days in 1990 and 254 days in 1991. He had also admitted that Hari Singh, Joginder Singh, Bimla Devi and Kali Dass were junior to the workman and they were still working. It is, thus, evident from the statement of RW-1 that the workman had completed 240 days preceding his retrenchment i.e. 1st October, 1991. The persons junior to him had been retained. He has neither been served with any notice nor any compensation has been given to him as stipulated under Section 25-F of the Act. The plea raised by the employer that it was a case of abandonment has been rightly rejected by the Labour Court. The abandonment of a job is a question of fact and the burden to prove it lies upon the Management/employer. PW-1 has specifically deposed before the Labour Court that he was dis-engaged by Shri Amar Singh Thakur, Range Officer and Shri Jit Singh, Deputy Ranger. The contention of Mr. Dogra that the State Government has made the reference belatedly deserves to be rejected. The employer has not raised this plea before the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal in its reply. The employer, if was aggrieved in any manner by the reference made by the State Government in the year 2001, should have assailed the decision in an appropriate forum promptly. The workman has also made a representations vide Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6 which were not considered by the employer. - 4 - Accordingly, it is held that there is neither any jurisdictional error nor any procedural irregularity in the award dated 1.6.2005 passed by the Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal. Consequently, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is rejected with no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge. July 28, 2008. (sck).