IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4733 of 2010. Judgment reserved on: 29.6.2011. Date of decision: 4.7.2011 H.P.S.E. B …Petitioner Versus Roop Lal …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr.Tarlok Jamwal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr.K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. The H.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board), by means of this petition, has challenged the award dated 16.6.2010 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala. 2. The following Reference was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication: “Whether the dismissal of Sh.Roop Lal son of Sh.Khotho Ram, daily wager beldar by the Superintending Engineer, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Operation Circle, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh on dated 5.6.1993 is correct and justified, if not to what service benefits, relief and seniority Sh.Roop Lal is entitled to?” 3. According to the respondent, he worked as daily wage beldar with the Board from 5.12.1984 till 4.6.1993 when he proceeded on leave for 90 days. The leave was duly sanctioned. The respondent alleges that he sustained injuries during this period and remained admitted in the Hospital. When, after treatment he was declared fit, he went to rejoin his duty the authorities did not permit him to do so and he came to know that in fact his name had been struck off from the rolls w.e.f. 5.6.1993. 4. The stand of the Board is that various letters and telegrams were sent to the respondent to rejoin duty but he did not do so and remained willfully absent from duty w.e.f. 7.6.1993. He refused to join despite correspondence and after fulfilling all codal formalities the services of the petitioner were terminated on 10.1.1995. 3 5. The learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the employee had remained willfully absent from duty and the competent authority had taken a decision to dispense with his services on 10.1.1995 after complying with the rules of natural justice. Having held so the learned Labour Court went on to hold that since the Government of Himachal Pradesh has exempted the Board from the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946 the order terminating the services of the respondent in exercise of such powers is illegal and void. 6. This part of the award is totally illegal. Even if the authority did not have the power under the Standing Orders then also under the ordinary Rules of employment or under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act the services of a daily-wager can be dispensed with if he does not join service despite he being informed that he should join service. The impugned order is totally illegal. Mere non-mentioning of a wrong provision of law 4 will not make the order illegal. If the power is there with the employer to pass an order merely because wrong provision is mentioned the order itself will not become void. It has not been disputed that the authority had the right to pass such an order and before terminating the services of the respondent he was given a number of opportunities and the Rules of Natural Justice were not violated while holding the domestic inquiry. 7. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed, the order of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala dated 16.6.2010 is set-aside and it is held that the services of the employee were rightly terminated and the reference is rejected. No costs. July 4, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge