IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 41 of 2010. Decided on: 18th November, 2010. Kishori Lal. ….Petitioner. -Versus- H.P. State Electricity Board and Others. .…Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner. : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents. : None. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The material facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis in the year, 1980. He has not worked w.e.f. 1981 to 1990. Thereafter, he was re-engaged and completed 224 days in 1991. He was retrenched by the respondent-Board on 24.05.1993. 2. According to Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent-Board has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for brevity sake). 3. I have heard Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure RA-I filed by the respondent-Board. A bare perusal of the mandays-chart makes it abundantly clear that the petitioner had completed 240 days in a block of twelve calendar months preceding his retrenchment. In 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - view of this, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were attracted. 5. Petitioner was retrenched on 24.05.1993. He ought to have availed the alternative remedy provided under Section 25-F of the Act. The present petition is pending since 1997. In normal circumstances, the petitioner ought to have been relegated to avail the alternative remedy provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, taking into consideration the fact that admittedly the petitioner had completed more than 240 days preceding his retrenchment, no fruitful purpose will be served by relegating the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy at this belated stage provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly, the Court has proceeded to decide the case on its own merits by taking into consideration the pleadings, more particularly, the mandays-chart Annexure RA-I, reflecting that the petitioner had completed 240 days preceding his retrenchment. The respondents have not complied with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Consequently, retrenchment of the petitioner on 24.05.1993 is declared void abinitio. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The retrenchment order of the petitioner dated 24.05.1993 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be deemed to be in service w.e.f. 24.05.1993. However, taking into consideration the latest trend in law, back wages are restricted to 50% only. The same shall be released to - 3 - the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by him. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge November 18, 2010. (bhupender) - 4 -