IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. No. 8093 of 2011. Decided on: 22.09.2011. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. ….. Petitioner. -Versus- Shri Sudershan Singh and another. …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner. : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents. : None. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): Petitioner-Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the management” for convenience sake) has assailed the award passed by the learned Presiding Officer-Cum-Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal Chandigarh in case I.D. No. 1319/2007, dated 10.03.2011. 2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the respondent No. 1 Sudershan Singh (hereinafter referred to as “the workman” for brevity sake) was engaged as Sweeper-Cum-Office Attendant in the month of June, 1998. He worked in this capacity till 31.03.2005. He was terminated on 31.03.2005. He has completed 240 days preceding twelve calendar months at the time of his retrenchment. He was neither issued one month’s notice nor paid the wages in lieu of 2 notice and other terminal benefits. Fresh hands were engaged after his disengagement violating Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He raised an industrial dispute. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal on 10.04.2007 to the following effect: “Whether the action of the management of District Telecom Engineer, BSNL, Nurpur, in terminating the services of their workman Sh. Sudershan Singh w.e.f. 01.04.2005 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?” 3. The workman filed the claim petition. The management filed the reply to the same. The statement of the workman and Shri Jitendra Kumar on behalf of the management was recorded. The workman has established before the learned Tribunal that he has completed 240 days preceding his retrenchment. Case of the management was that the workman had been engaged in 1999 and not in 1998. The management has also referred to one circular, whereby the casual labourers who had been working with the department w.e.f. 01.08.1998 and 25.08.2000 had been converted into full time casual labourers against vacant posts. The decision of the management to convert the part time daily wagers into casual labourers has nothing to do with the present dispute. The dispute before the Tribunal was whether the workman had completed 240 days preceding his retrenchment in a block of twelve calendar months w.e.f. 3 31.03.2005 and whether the retrenchment was in conformity with law or not. Since the workman has worked continuously for 240 days before his retrenchment, one month’s notice was required to be issued to him and in lieu thereof, he was entitled to wages and other terminal benefits. The management has neither issued any show cause notice to the workman nor he has been paid the compensation and wages in lieu of notice. There is neither any illegality nor perversity in the award passed by the learned Labour Court. The scope of judicial review in these matters is limited. 4. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. September 22, 2011. (bhupender)