IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Writ Petition No. 1285 of 2007. Reserved on: 6.6.2008 Decided on: 20.06.2008. __________________________________________________ State of H.P. and Anr. … Petitioners. Versus Shri Shiv Dyal and Anr. … Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. For Respondents : None. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. A challenge has been laid by the petitioners to the award dated 7.12.2006 passed by the Presiding Judge, H.P. Labour Court, Shimla in reference No. 344 of 2002. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the workman for convenience sake) had raised the industrial dispute. The State Government after the failure of the conciliation proceedings had referred the matter to the Labour Court, which reads thus: “Whether the termination of the service of Shri Shiv Dayal, a daily waged beldar, w.e.f. Dec. 1998 without complying the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation & Public Health Department, Division Arki, Distt. Solan, H.P. is fair and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits including seniority and back wages, the daily waged workman Sh. Shiv Dayal is entitled to? 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 In sequel to the reference made by the State Government, the workman has filed his statement of claim mentioning therein that he had completed 240 days preceding 12 calendar months at the time of his retrenchment i.e. 4.12.1998. The petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the employer for convenience sake) filed its reply. The Labour Court on the basis of the evidence led by the parties passed the award in affirmity holding therein that the workman’s retrenchment was bad in law and he was held entitled to re-instatement with seniority and continuity in service. However, the back wages were denied to him. The Employer-State had filed this writ petition assailing the award dated 7.12.2006. I have heard the learned Additional Advocate General and have perused the pleadings carefully. The workman was engaged on 1.1.1991 in Arki Sub Division at Subathu. He was retrenched on 4.12.1998. The employer had placed on record the details of man-days in respect to workman for the years 1993-1994, 1994-1995, 1995-1996, 1996-1997 and 1997-1998. It is evident from the man-days chart that the workman’s presence has been marked only up to 30.11.1998. The Labour Court was to consider whether the workman had completed 240 days preceding 30.11.1998 in a block of twelve calendar months up to 30.11.1997. The period of twelve calendar months is to be counted backward from 30.11.1998 to 1.11.1997. It is clear from the man-days chart that the workman had completed 254 days in a block of twelve calendar months preceding the date of retrenchment i.e. 30.11.1998. Since the workman had completed 240 days in a block of twelve calendar months, he was entitled to the protection of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Admittedly, neither any notice nor any compensation had been paid to the workman at the time of retrenchment. The Labour Court on the analysis of the evidence produced on record has held that the workman had completed 240 days w.e.f. November 1997 to November 1998 and his retrenchment was bad 3 in law without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This finding of the learned Labour Court is up held. The plea raised by Mr. Rajnder Dogra, Additional Advocate General that there is an inordinate delay in filing the reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is liable to be rejected. The retrenchment of the workman was effected in 1998 and thereafter, he had raised the industrial dispute by issuing a demand notice. Thereafter, conciliation had taken place and it was only on the basis of the failure report that the State had made a reference in the year 2002 in the Labour Court. The plea of Mr. Rajinder Dogra could be considered favourably if the Labour Court had awarded back wages as well. In the present case, the Labour Court had re-instated the workman in service with seniority and continuity without back wages. There was no inordinate delay in raising the industrial dispute by the workman. Consequently, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. (Rajiv Sharma), J. June 20, 2008. (cr)