IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1185 of 2011 Date of decision: 29.04.2011 H.P.S.E.B. and another …. Petitioners Versus Chet Ram …. Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioners: Mr. Trilok Jamwal, Advocate. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): This judgment shall dispose of the civil writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, vide which the petitioners have prayed that the impugned award passed by the learned H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, dated 15.9.2010, in Ref. No. 47 of 2008, be quashed and set aside. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record of the case. 3. A perusal of the record shows that a reference was made to the learned Labour Court for consideration of the question as to whether services of the petitioner (respondent before us), were terminated without complying the provisions of Section 25F and 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was also alleged by the present respondent that the persons junior to him had been retained, but his services were terminated. 2 4. The learned Labour Court entered into the reference and vide its impugned award held that the termination of the services of the present respondent was not in accordance with law and allowed the reference and passed an order that the petitioner be reinstated in service with seniority and continuity but without back wages from the date of his termination i.e. 25.5.1999. The said order has been challenged by the Electricity Board by the present writ petition. 5. It is clear from a perusal of the award passed that there was nothing to conclude that the services of the petitioner/present respondent were engaged for a particular work and it has been so held by the learned Labour Court based on the evidence produced before it. Since the workman had not worked for the period, the learned Labour Court rightly directed that he will not be entitled to back wages. A perusal of the record shows that as per the man-days chart attached, the petitioner had completed 240 days in the years preceding the date of termination with effect from 25.5.1999.Therefore, it was rightly held that he was entitled to issuance of a notice before his services were terminated. The workman has also placed on record, the record showing that in pursuance of the orders passed by the Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, the two of the juniors to the petitioner/present respondent had been re-engaged by the department. There are findings of the learned Labour Court in this regard, which have not been assailed to be incorrect. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Erstwhile Administrative Tribunal directing the reinstatement of the petitioner as well as the orders passed for continuity in service from the date of his termination. 3 6. In view of the above discussion, we accordingly hold that there is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioners, which is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice ( Justice V.K. Ahuja ), April 29, 2011 Judge (bss) 4