IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.: 1607 of 2007. Decided on: 10.01.2008. H.P.S.E.B. & Another … … Petitioners. Versus Jagdish Chand & Another. … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: A challenge has been laid by the State to the award passed by the Labour Court, Shimla in reference No.209 of 2002 dated 16.3.2007. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the State Government has made the following reference to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Shimla:- “Whether the termination of the services of Shri Jagdish Chand S/o Shri Mast Ram w.e.f. 11.8.1996 by the Executive Engineer, HP State Electricity Board Division Totu District Shimla, on the completion of the work, without serving any notice is proper and justified? If not, what salary, seniority service benefits and compensation the above workman is entitled to?” Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - The workman in sequel to the reference made by the State Government has filed his statement of claim primarily contending therein that he has been retrenched without following the prescribed procedure. The employer has filed a detailed reply to the statement of claim stating therein that the workman was engaged in two different spells, i.e. 1.3.1993 to 25.9.1994 and 7.6.1996 to 11.8.1996. It is further averred in the reply to statement of claim filed by the employer that since the workman was engaged on a specific project, no notice was required to be given to him. The Labour Court vide award dated 16.3.2007 has partly allowed the reference directing reinstatement of the workman without seniority and back-wages. Mr. Shrawan Dogra had strenuously argued that the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the workman was required to be served with 10 days’ notice as per the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Standing Order is bad in law since according to him after 22nd August, 1992, the provisions of Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 do not apply to the workman and their conditions of service are governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Mr. Neel Kamal Sood had supported the award dated 16.3.2007. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The workman has appeared as PW-1 before the Labour Court. He has stated that he was engaged with effect from 25.12.1993 to 31.7.1994 and thereafter with effect from June, 1996 up to 25th August, 1996. He has further stated that he was not issued any show cause notice and two workmen, namely, Gopal Singh and Devi Chand were retained by the employer. He has further stated that the work was available with the employer. - 3 - Shri Rajnish Kumar has appeared as RW-1 on behalf of the employer. He has stated that the workman had worked with effect from 1.3.1994 to 25.9.1994 and thereafter with effect from 7.6.1996 to 11.8.1996. He has stated that the workman was engaged for a specific work and since the work has come to an end, no notice was required to be issued to the workman. He has denied that the persons junior to the workman were retained at the time of effecting his retrenchment. It is evident from the material placed on record that the Standing Orders framed by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board have ceased to apply after 22.8.1992 and the conditions of service of the workmen thereafter are being regulated under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Admittedly, the workman had not completed 240 days as is evident from the man-days chart placed on record. If the workman had not completed 240 days at the time of his retrenchment in a block of 12 calendar months preceding his retrenchment, he is not entitled to the protection of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since the Standing Orders framed by the H.P. State Electricity Board have ceased to apply after 1992, the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the workman was required to be issued 10 days’ notice is bad in law. However, the workman had categorically stated while appearing as PW-1 that two persons, namely, Gopal Singh and Devi Chand though were junior to him, but were retained by the employer. Shri Gopal Singh was engaged on 8.4.1996 to 25.8.1996. However, the workman was engaged with effect from 1st March, 1994. Thus, Shri Gopal Singh is junior to the workman who was retained by the employer. The Management was bound to follow the principle ‘last come first go’ at the time of effecting his retrenchment in the year 1994. Similarly, the workman had stated that Shri Devi Chand, junior to him was retained at the time of effecting his retrenchment. - 4 - It is a settled-law by now that the workman need not complete 240 days for invoking Section 25(G) and (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held in Central Bank of India vesus S. Satyam and Others, (1996) 5 SCC 419 that: “The plain language of Section 25-H speaks only of “retrenched workmen”. The ordinary meaning of the expression “retrenched workmen” must relate to the wide meaning of ‘retrenchment’ given in Section 2(oo). Section 25- F also uses the word ‘retrenchment’ but qualifies it by use of the further words “workman … who has been in continuous service for not less than one year”. Thus, Section 25-F does not restrict the meaning of retrenchment but qualifies the category of retrenched workmen covered therein by use of the further words “workman … who has been in continuous service for not less than one year”. It is clear that Section 25- F applies to the retrenchment of a workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year and not to any workman who has been in continuous service for less than one year; and it does not restrict or curtail the meaning of retrenchment merely because the provision therein is made only for the retrenchment of a workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year. Chapter V-A deals with all retrenchments while Section 25-F is confined only to the mode of retrenchment of workmen in continuous service for not less than one year. Section 25-G prescribes the principle for retrenchment and applies ordinarily the principle of “last come first go” which is not confined only to workman who have been in continuous service for not less than one year, covered by Section 25-F.” In view of the above discussion and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the workman was entitled to issuance of notice as per clause 14(2) of the Standing Orders framed by the H.P. State Electricity Board is set aside. - 5 - However, the finding recorded by the Labour Court that there was violation of Section 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is up-held. Consequently, the award shall stand modified as per the observations made hereinabove. The employer is directed to reinstate the workman as beldar within a period of six weeks from today without seniority and back wages. There shall be no order as to costs. January 10, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma) (sck). Judge