IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 897 of 2008-D Date of Decision : December 20, 2011 The Executive Engineer, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, Electrical Division Manali, District Kullu, H.P. Petitioner Versus 1. Sh. Bhoop Singh s/o Sh. Bhagat Ram R/o Village Jabral P.O. Baloh Gokhra Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, H.P. 2. Presiding Judge, Himachal Pradesh Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Dharamshala, District Kangra [Camp at Mandi] Himachal Pradesh. Respondents Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of the appropriate writ, order or directions as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Arwind Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R. K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) In this petition the Executive Engineer, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board has assailed the award dated 7.4.2008 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (Annexure P-4) in Reference No. 39/2004 (RBT 62/04). Reference to be adjudicated by the Tribunal reads as under:- “Whether the termination of services of Shri Bhoop Singh s/o Sh. Bhagat Ram, daily wages beldar by the Additional Superintending Engineer, H.P.S.E.B., Division, Manali, District Kullu, H.P. w.e.f. 20.2.2000 without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Clause 14(2) of the Certified Standing Orders of the board, whereas junior to him are retained by the board is proper and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits and compensation the above aggrieved workman is entitled to?” 2. The Tribunal after considering the evidence led by the parties, in my considered view, has rightly come to the conclusion that the workman was able to prove the earlier decision with respect to similarly situated workman, rendered by the Tribunal in Reference No. 39/2004, decided on 22.5.2006 also titled as Bhoop Singh versus The Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, H.P.S.E.B. Manali, H.P. (Annexure P-3) as also the fact that persons junior to him were allowed to continue to work whereas he being senior, was disengaged in spite of the fact that work was otherwise available and that principle of ‘last come first go’ was done away with and not followed by the employer. In fact Tribunal has referred to and relied upon the testimony of the witnesses of the employer to arrive at such conclusions. 3 3. As such no ground for interference is made out. In my considered view, Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner herein had wrongly dispensed with the services of the workman (respondent No. 1) and has thus rightly directed re- engagement of the workman in the same capacity in which he was rendering work prior to his disengagement. Significantly Tribunal has only directed that break in service shall not affect seniority of the workman who shall not be entitled to any back wages. I see no illegality, perversity or irregularity in such findings returned by the Tribunal. Nothing to this effect has also been pointed out. 4. It is also noticed that, pursuant to the award workman now stands re-engaged on daily wage basis as Beldar which is evident from order dated 3.7.2008 placed on record by Mr. R. K. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.1. The aforesaid petition is thus dismissed. Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. December 20 , 2011 (PK)