IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 4774 of 2008 Decided on: 11.08.2010 Bhagat Ram …Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. No For the petitioner. : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : The petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis on 26.05.1982. The case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that he was retrenched by the respondent/employer on 20.09.1992 without following the mandatory provisions of the Standing Orders framed by the respondent Board under the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946. His further case is that even though the petitioner has not completed 240 days, 10 days' notice was required to be issued, as per the Standing Orders. 2. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate submits that the Standing Order ceased to apply to the respondent Board w.e.f. 22.08.1992, as per notification issued in the year 1993. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No -2- Therefore, the case of the petitioner was required to be considered as per the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In order to invoke the provisions of Section 25(F), (G) and (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, petitioner was required to complete 240 days in a block of 12 calender month. Since the petitioner has not completed 240 days in a block of 12 calender months, preceding his retrenchment, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge August 11, 2010 (K. Attri)