IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.: 7357 of 2011. Decided on: 08.09.2011. ______________________________________________ State of H.P. and another. … Petitioners. Versus Tej Singh and another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. For the petitioners : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents : Nemo. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): This petition has been filed by the State against the award dated 20.11.2010 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala in reference No.35 of 2007. 2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondents/workmen (hereinafter referred to as “the workmen” for convenience sake) were engaged in the year 1980. They were re-engaged on 16.8.2003 and 23.3.2004 respectively, but were again retrenched on 1.9.2004. According to the workmen persons junior to them were retained at the time of their retrenchment. They raised an industrial dispute. Consequently, - 2 - reference was made by the State Government to the Labour Court. The reference was partly allowed. The learned Presiding Judge ordered reengagement of the workmen forthwith with seniority, but has declined the back wages. 3. The Management has placed on record the mandays chart of workmen Tej Singh and Om Chand vide Ex.RW-1/A and Ex.RW-1/B respectively. The Management has also placed on record the copy of seniority list, Ex.RW-1/C. The Labour Court, on the basis of seniority list Ex.RW-1/C came to the conclusion that the persons junior to the workmen were retained at the time of their retrenchment. It is settled law by now that in order to get benefit under Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the workman is not required to complete 240 days in preceding twelve calendar months at the time of retrenchment. The Labour Court has correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence. There is no perversity in the award dated 20.11.2010. 4. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. September 08, 2011. (sck).