IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 775 of 2002 Date of Decision: 15.7.2008 ________________________________________________________________ H.P.SEB & Ors. … Petitioners. Versus Keshav Ram … Respondent. ________________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : ________________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J (Oral): This petition is directed against the order of the learned Tribunal dated 10.10.2001 whereby the petition filed by the respondent herein was allowed and the petitioner- H.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) was directed to re-engage the respondent. The undisputed facts are that the respondent - employee has worked as Daily waged Beldar with the Board with effect from 21.1.1999 to 20.6.2000. According to - 2 - the Board on 20.6.2000, the respondent left the job on his own accord. The respondent filed OA(M) No. 530/2000 before the learned Tribunal claiming that he was initially engaged on 30.11.1998 and continued to work as Daily waged Beldar till 20.8.2000 when his services were terminated without giving any notice and in violation of the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Board contested the application on various grounds. One of the pleas taken was that the respondent- employee had not completed 240 days in a calendar year prior to his termination. It was, however, admitted that the petitioner is a workman and the Board is an Industry. On these basis, it was argued that the learned Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The learned Tribunal did not go into the question as to whether the services of the petitioner were terminated in violation of the provisions of the Act. It, however, held that the termination was not in accordance with the Order 14 of the Standing Orders of the Board and hence allowed the petition. - 3 - Shri Baldev Singh learned counsel for the Board has contended that the order of the learned Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law since the Standing Orders framed by the Board under the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 have ceased to apply to the employees of the Board w.e.f. 22.8.1992. He also contends that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the matter and the dispute should have been decided by the learned Labour Court. As far as the first contention is concerned, this Court in a number of cases has already held that the Standing Orders framed by the Board have ceased to apply to the employees of the Board w.e.f. 22.8.1992. It is thus apparent that the service conditions of the workman are therefore to be regulated under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the learned Tribunal erred in holding that there is violation of the Standing Orders. The next contention of Shri Baldev Singh is that in view of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in H.P.Agro Industrial Corporation and others v. Raj Kumar and another (2002)3 Sim.L.C. 423, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the cases pertaining to daily wagers - 4 - if they claim benefit accruing under the Industrial Disputes Act. There can be no dispute with this contention of law also. However, in the present case, we find that even as per the Mandays Chart , filed by the petitioner-Board itself. The respondent-employee Keshav Ram had completed 240 days of service in the 12 months prior to the dispensation of his services on 20.6.2000. It is also apparent from the averments made in para 4 of the petition that the Board has re-engaged the services of the respondent and complied with the orders of the Tribunal before filing of the present petition. The Board has admitted that it is an industry and the respondent is a workman. Even as per the Mandays Chart filed by the Board itself, the respondent –employee had completed 240 days service from 5.7.1999 to 20.6.2000. Therefore, his services could have been terminated only in accordance with the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Admittedly, no notice was given to the respondent- employee nor any retrenchment compensation was paid to him. The services of the respondent-employee were terminated in total violation of the provisions of the Act. - 5 - The case of the Board that the respondent-employee had himself voluntarily abandoned his service is not supported by any material on record. The attending circumstances especially the fact that the Original Application was filed within a few months of the alleged abandonment of service clearly shows that the respondent- employee has not abandoned his job. Therefore, though we are of the view that the learned Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the original application, we do not feel that this is a fit case where we should exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court is not only a Court of law but also a Court of equity. This Court can always refuse to entertain a writ petition if it is found that the interest of justice has been served by the impugned order, even though the said order suffers from some illegal infirmity. We have taken this view because admittedly the termination of the service of the respondent is in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and it is also proved on record that the respondent was re-engaged in compliance with the orders of the learned Tribunal and has been working with the Board for the last several years. - 6 - In view of the above discussion, the petition is rejected with no order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. July 15, 2008. ( V.K.Ahuja ), J. s.