IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3233 of 2009. Date of decision: 7.12.2010 Bhoop Singh …. Petitioner Versus HRTC & anr. ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Mr.Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Shri Adarsh Sharma, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) This petition is directed against the award dated 19.8.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Shimla. At the outset, I am constrained to observe that the learned Labour Court has not even cared to go through the documents placed on record. The learned Labour Court vide order dated 9.3.2009 rightly permitted the petitioner to place on record the information of mandays chart which he had obtained under the Right to Information Act. The main question which arose for decision in the case was whether the petitioner had 2 completed 240 days of service in the twelve calendar months preceding his termination and, therefore, whether the termination of his services without following the procedure laid down under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was illegal. The learned Labour Court has made a passing reference to the information obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act in his award and has recorded that the petitioner has failed to prove on record that he had worked for 240 days in the twelve calender months preceding the termination of his services. This clearly shows that the learned Labour Court did not even care to go through the record. His muster-roll and attendance register have been placed on record even in this Court. These were a part of the record of the learned Labour Court also and this record shows that in the twelve months, prior to his termination, he had worked for 285 days. Even if we take the period from April, 2000 to March, 2001 into consideration, the petitioner worked for 30 days in April, 2000, 30 days in May, 30 days in June, 30 days in August, 30 days in September, 30 days in November, 31 days in December, 30 days in January, 2001, 15 days in February and 31 days in March. Therefore, the total days 3 comes to 285 days. Therefore, I fail to understand how the learned Labour Court held that the petitioner had not worked for 240 days. This shows total non-application of mind. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed. The order of the learned Labour Court is set aside. It is held that since the petitioner had completed 240 days of service in the calendar year preceding his retrenchment the termination of his services done without following the procedure laid down under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is illegal and void. He is, therefore, entitled to reinstatement in service. He is also held entitled to seniority from the date he was illegally retrenched. However, his back wages are limited to 25% of the amount due. The HRTC is directed to pay the back wages to the petitioner on or before 30th April 2011. In case this amount is not paid on or before the said date, the HRTC shall also be liable to pay interest on this amount from the date it fell due till payment @ 12% per annum. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. December 7, 2010 (Deepak Gupta) (m) Judge