IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.471 of 2009 Date of decision : August 11, 2010 Jagdish Chand …Petitioner. Versus H.P.S.E.B. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashwani K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Deepak Gupta, J (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by the award of the Presiding Judge, Labour Court, Shimla, whereby the claim preferred by him has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. 2. The reference made to the Labour Court was whether the termination of the services of the petitioner by the employer was without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and was proper and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits, seniority, back wages, and amount of compensation the aggrieved workman is entitled to? 3. It is not in dispute that the workman, in question, had completed 240 days of work preceding his retrenchment. The workman had initially approached the Tribunal for Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. …2… redressal of his grievance but since the matter was an industrial dispute, the workman was directed to approach the authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter, the petitioner lodged a claim with the State Government and a reference was made by the State Government to the Labour Court. 4. The Labour Court has drawn the presumption that the petitioner is deemed to have abandoned his job. This presumption is more or less based on the finding of the Labour Court that the workman approached the Court after a long lapse of time. This in fact is not factually correct, since after his retrenchment, the workman has approached the Tribunal and when that remedy was not held to be the proper remedy he approached the Labour Court. 5. A similar matter has been disposed of by another Bench of this court. The question of law and facts involved in that case and in the present case are identical. The said case is Shri Sattar Mohammad versus The H.P. State Electricity Board and others, CWP No.1041 of 2008, decided on 9th January, 2009. In that case the learned Single Judge held as follows: “Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Award dated 3.6.2006 is set aside. The retrenchment of the petitioner effected on 21.12.1992 is declared void ab initio. The petitioner shall be deemed to be in employment. However, in peculiar facts and circumstances of …3… the case he will only be entitled to 50% back wages. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.” 6. It has been contended by Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, that back wages may not be awarded. I am unable to accept this argument. Admittedly, the judgment in Sattar Mohammad’s case has been implemented and no appeal has been filed by the Electricity Board. The Board cannot take different stand in different cases, where identical questions are involved. After retrenchment, Sattar Mohammad also approached the Tribunal and thereafter the Labour Court like the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the same relief to which Sattar Mohammad was entitled. 7. Admittedly, the case of the petitioner is identical to the case of the petitioner in Sattar Mohammad’s case. Therefore, following the aforesaid decision, the award dated 3rd June, 2006 is set aside. The retrenchment of the petitioner is declared void ab initio and the petitioner is deemed to be in employment. However, as directed by the learned Single Judge in Sattar Mohammad’s case, the petitioner shall only be entitled to 50 per cent of back wages. Writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. August 11, 2010(sd) ( Deepak Gupta ), J