CWP No. 13114 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 13114 of 2010 Date of decision : 28.07.2011 Bhakra Beas Management Board .....Petitioner versus Gurbachan Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr A.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Madan Mohan, Advocate for respondent No. 1 **** RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) Challenge is to the award dated 02.09.2009 (Annexure P-7) whereby the reference of the workman has been allowed and the Management was held guilty of violating the provisions of Section 25 (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after to be referred as 'the Act'). The workman was retrenched in the year 1980. On 21.06.1993, respondent No. 1 issued a demand notice on the employer claiming that he was not given an opportunity for re-employment as per Section 25 H of the Act (Annexure P-1). On 24.07.1997, the Government of India vide notification dated 24.07.1997 by exercising powers under Section 10 of the Act referred an Industrial Dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal. “Whether the action of the Management of B.B.M.B in not CWP No. 13114 of 2010 -2- reemploying the retrenched workman Sh. Gurbachan Singh (who was retrenched in 1980), in 1993 when fresh recruitment were made in the establishment is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled and from which date.” Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the retrenched employees from BCB were appointed in BBMB as per the policy of B.B.M.B. Workman was not the retrenched from B.C.B, hence, there was not violation of Section 25 (H) of the Act. It was the policy decision to retrench the employees of BCB. No one junior to the respondent-workman has been reemployed with the management in the year 1993. In August, 1993 BBMB has given fresh appointments only to Beas Construction Board retrenches and no fresh hands were recruited during that period to his category. Workman has not named junior to him who has been re-employed. Mr. Madan Mohan, Advocate for respondent No. 1 on the other hand has referred to para 5 and 6 of affidavit dated 19.10.2001(Annexure P-5) wherein workman has mentioned the names of T-Mate Sh. Karnail Singh and Sh. Karan Singh. Both had joined on 13.10.1998 and were junior to the workman. They have been appointed on regular basis. These employees had been retrenched along with the workman and thereafter they were taken back and subsequently appointed in the year 1993. A reference has been made to one Joginder Singh, who was also junior to the workman and has also been given regular appointment. In the case of Sat Pal Singh vs. B.B.M., the Tribunal B in reference No. 117/83 has held the termination to be void in similar circumstances. The workman had filed his affidavit stating that some persons were recruited freshly by the Management after his termination. Not even a CWP No. 13114 of 2010 -3- single word was asked in the cross-examination by the Management. Hence the finding of the Labour Court that the Management had re-employed some persons junior to the workman in January 1993 is in violation of Section 25-H of the Act, does not called for any interference. After going through the award, it is not a matter of dispute that the retrenched employees of BCB were employed by the BBMB. The present workman was not the retrenched employee of BCB. In the claim statement, the workman has given the name of one Sohan Singh s/o Mast Ram who was employed w.e.f 04.11.1978 as T-Mate. He continued to work whereas petitioner's services were terminated on 03.04.1980. About 1200 workman were appointed by the BBMB in August 1993 and the petitioner was ignored. Similarly in the cases of Satpal Singh, Joginder Pal and Karnail Singh, their terminations have been held to be void by the Labour Court vide award dated 08.12.1993. The Management's plea that they have not maintained a seniority list has not been accepted by the Labour Court and the Management has admitted that they did not gave any opportunity to the petitioner-workman to work with them. They appointed fresh appointees. The Labour Court has reinstated the workman without back-wages. Thus, the labour court award does not suffers from any legal infirmity. Dismissed. July 28, 2011 (RITU BAHRI) G.Arora JUDGE