IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1475 of 2008. Decided on: 20.5.2010 Virender Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge For the petitioner: Mr.Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the award passed by the Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, dated 11.7.2008, vide which the learned Tribunal has held that the claim of the petitioner fails and the same was dismissed on a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The question before the learned Tribunal was whether the termination of the services of the petitioner as daily-wage Beldar by the Executive Engineer was without any notice and without complying with the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act was legal and justified. The petitioner had also prayed for the daily-wage seniority, service benefits etc. 2 2. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. Both the parties led evidence and the learned Tribunal, vide its impugned award, held that the termination of the services of the petitioner is not violative of Sections 25-F and 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such the issue as to whether the petitioner had abandoned the job on his own had become redundant. In case the services of the petitioner had been terminated illegally being violative of Sections 25-F and 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, he was entitled to the relief claimed by him on the basis of ‘first come and last go’. However, in case the plea of the respondents is accepted that the petitioner had abandoned the job on his own, he was not entitled to the relief claimed by him. The learned Tribunal has not given its findings on this point as to whether the services of the petitioner were wrongly terminated by the respondents or he had abandoned the job on his own, which findings had to be given and on that basis the petitioner was to be held entitled or not entitled to the relief claimed by him. The learned Tribunal has observed that the findings under this issue had become redundant, but the same had not become redundant and the findings have to be given on this issue before the question of grant of relief to the petitioner was considered. 3. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that the case deserves to be remanded back to the learned Tribunal, who shall consider the question afresh. In case both the parties seek 3 opportunity for leading evidence in support of issue No.4, the same shall be given to them and thereafter the case shall be decided afresh by the learned Tribunal after hearing the parties. Needless to say, the case is old one and steps shall be taken by the learned Tribunal to dispose of the case within a period of four months from 14th June, 2010, on which date, the parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside accordingly. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. May 20, 2010 (V.K.Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge