IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5374 of 2010 Date of decision: 05.04.2011. Jarnail Singh …Petitioner Versus The Senior Executive Engineer, HPSEB …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Petitioner : Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr.Tarlok Jamwal, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the award of the learned Presiding Judge, H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla dated 7.7.2010 whereby he rejected the claim of the petitioner. 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was engaged as daily-waged beldar with the respondent Board in the year 1993. His services were terminated on 20.8.1999 and thereafter the petitioner filed an O.A. No.15 of 2000 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 which was allowed by the Tribunal on 12th October, 2001, the operative portion of the order reads as follows: “In view of the above circumstances, the provisions of Clause 14(2)(a) of the HPSEB Standing Orders have not been complied with and the oral termination of the services of the application is bad in law and the same is quashed. The respondents are directed to re-engage the applicant at the same place or in the vicinity from where his services were terminated without any undue delay. The period between re-engagement and dis-engagement will be counted for seniority but the applicant will not be entitled for back wages. The second prayer for regularization is not pressed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.” 3. A bare reading of this order shows that though the petitioner was not in service and was not granted back- wages for the purposes of seniority etc. he was deemed to be in service. This basically meant that the petitioner was only denied benefit of back-wages but for all other intents and purposes the petitioner was deemed to be in service. The aforesaid order was passed on 12.10.2001 and on 25.12.2001 the services of the petitioner were again terminated. 4. The petitioner sought reference to the Labour Court for declaring his termination illegal and the following reference was sent for adjudication to the Labour Court:: 3 “Whether the termination of services of Shri Jarnail Singh son of Shri Sita Ram, workman by the Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, HPSEB Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. w.e.f. 26.12.2001 without complying the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is proper and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits and amount of compensation, the above aggrieved workman is entitled to.” 5. The Labour Court held that since the petitioner had not actually worked for 240 days prior to the termination of his services on 25.12.2001 he was not entitled to the benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 6. In my view the approach of the learned Labour Court was perverse. Services of the petitioner stood terminated. He challenged this order before the learned Tribunal, which allowed his application and held the termination of his services to be bad. The natural consequence would have been that the petitioner should have been held entitled to all consequential benefits but the Tribunal decided not to give the benefit of back-wages to the petitioner but made it clear that for the purpose of seniority he would be deemed to be in service. Once the order of termination was quashed the petitioner is deemed to be in service and this fact was totally glossed over by the learned Industrial Tribunal. How could the petitioner be actually working when his services had been 4 illegally were already terminated? After his termination was set-aside it meant that he was in service throughout. Therefore, it is obvious that the award of the learned Presiding Judge of the learned Tribunal is totally incorrect and liable to be set-aside. 7. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed, the order Annexure P-9 is quashed and set-aside and it is held that the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits w.e.f. 26.12.2001 including back- wages. The arrears of back-wages be paid to the petitioner on or before 31.8.2011 failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to 12% interest on the back- wages. No costs. April 5, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge