IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.9639 of 2008. Decided on: 14.12.2010. Madan Lal. ……….Petitioner. Versus H.P. State Electricity Board and Another. ……….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. R.P.Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis with effect from 26th April, 1989. He was retrenched on 26th April, 2000. It is evident from Annexure R-1A that the petitioner has completed more than 240 days preceding his retrenchment. Admittedly, no notice has been issued to him under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for brevity sake). Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, learned counsel for the respondents has strenuously argued that the petitioner ought to have taken recourses to the remedy available to him before the appropriate forum and not before this Court. It is true that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is self-contained Code. However, the Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that this petition is pending since 2003. In normal circumstances, this court ought to have relegated the petitioner to an alternate remedy. However, since, the petitioner has already completed the period of 240 days preceding his retrenchment i.e. 26th April, 2000, no useful purpose will be served by relegating the petitioner to the remedy appropriate under the Act at this belated stage. Accordingly, the Court has proceeded to decide the matter on its merits. Since the petitioner has completed 240 days in 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?. No a block of twelve calendar months preceding his retrenchment, he was required to be issued notice under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In fact, no notice has been issued to the petitioner of 10 days under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The retrenchment of the petitioner is declared void ab-initio. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner within a period of two months after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. He is entitled to 50% back wages. However, he is entitled to count this period for the purpose of seniority. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge. December 14, 2010. (krt) 2