IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 2588/2009 Decided on: 18.6.2010. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and another. ...Petitioners. Versus Mangat Ram and another. ... Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Justice Rajiv Sharma (oral) Petitioner, i.e. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, has challenged the award dated 20.4.2009 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Shimla in reference No. 180/2001. 2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the workman’ for convenience sake) was engaged on daily wage basis as Beldar with effect from 26.8.1983. He was retrenched on 20.4.1991. He raised demand notice. State Government Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 after the receipt of failure report made following reference to the Labour Court: “Whether the termination of the services of Shri Mangat Ram son of Sh. Jhinu Ram village Khadog P.O. Thanger Tehsil Chopal District Shimla, HP as alleged, by the Executive Engineer State Electricity Board, Division Chopal District Shimla HP w.e.f. April, 1991 is legal and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits and amount of compensation, the above workman is entitled to?” “whether Shri Mangat Ram left the job of his own as alleged? If so, its effect?” 3. The workman filed claim petition stating therein that he had completed more than 240 days preceding his retrenchment, i.e. 20.4.1991 and workmen junior to him were retained and fresh hands were also engaged. The management also filed reply to the claim petition. Case of the management precisely before the Labour Court was that the workman has neither completed 240 days prior to his retrenchment nor persons junior to him have been retained or re-engaged. The Labour Court passed award in favour of the workman on 20.4.2009. The Labour Court ordered the reinstatement of the workman with seniority and continuity in service, however, back wages were denied. 4. Mr. Vinod Thakur has strenuously argued that since the workman had not completed 240 days preceding his retrenchment in a block of 12 calendar months, the award is 3 illegal. He then contended that neither any junior workman was retained nor any fresh hand was engaged by the management. 5. Mr. L.N. Sharma has supported the award dated 20.4.2009 passed by the Labour Court. 6. The workman has appeared as PW-1. He has deposed that he was engaged as Beldar on muster roll basis in the month of April, 1983 in Chopal Division. He has further deposed that some of the persons working alongwith him were regularized by the management and three persons, namely, Kalam Singh, Murti and Dula Ram were still working with the management. According to him, he had completed 240 days in preceding 12 calendar months and the Department had given him fictional breaks and his services were terminated without any notice or compensation. Sh. Hans Raj, Engineer had appeared on behalf of the management. According to him, workman was engaged as daily wage Beldar on 26.8.1983 and continued as such till 20.4.1991 and thereafter he abandoned the job. The Labour Court has committed mistake in calculating 240 days as per section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity sake). The Labour Court is required to count 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months preceding backwards from the date of retrenchment of the workman. In the instant case, the Labour Court has concluded that since the workman had completed 240 days in the year 1983-84, notice under section 25-F of the Act was required to be issued to the workman. The workman has been retrenched in 4 the present case on 20.4.1991. The finding recorded by the Labour Court to the contrary is liable to be set aside. 7. Now, we will advert whether the persons junior to the workman were retained or fresh hands were engaged after the retrenchment of the workman effected on 20.4.1991. Sh. Hans Raj, Engineer while appearing on behalf of the management did not refute allegations made by the petitioner in the claim petition. He had not brought any record to establish that the persons junior to the workman were not retained or fresh hands were not engaged. It was for the management to bring on record whether three workmen, namely, Kalam Singh, Murti and Dula Ram were not juniors to the workman. He has also not placed on record copy of seniority list to prove that fresh hands were not engaged by the management. There is no occasion for us to interfere with the findings recorded by the Labour Court after perusing the oral as well as documentary evidence that the persons junior to the workman were retained and fresh hands were also engaged. 8. Accordingly, in view of the above observations, the award dated 20.4.2009 is upheld subject to the modification made hereinabove. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma) Judge. 18.6.2010. *awasthi*