IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.: 1605 of 2007. Decided on: 10.01.2008. H.P.S.E.B. & Another … … Petitioners. Versus Dharam Singh & Another. … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: A challenge has been laid by the State to the award passed by the Labour Court, Shimla in reference No.202 of 2002 dated 26.3.2007. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the State Government has made the following reference to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Shimla:- “Whether the termination of the services of Shri Dharam Singh S/o Shri Nandu Ram w.e.f. 6.7.1994 by the Executive Engineer, HP State Electricity Board Division Totu District Shimla, on the completion of the work, without serving any notice is proper and justified? If not, what salary, seniority service benefits and compensation the above workman is entitled to?” Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - In sequel to the reference made by the State Government, the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the workman) has filed his statement of claim primarily stated therein that he was retrenched without following the prescribed procedure. The Management has filed detailed reply to the statement of claim filed by the workman and a specific stand was taken therein that since the workman was engaged for a specific project, no notice was required to be issued to him at the time of his retrenchment. The Labour Court partly allowed the reference on 26.3.2007 by directing the reinstatement of the workman without seniority and back wages. Mr. Shrawan Dogra had strenuously argued that the Standing Orders framed by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board under the provisions of Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 have ceased to apply after 22.8.1992 and the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the workman was required to be issued 10 days notice is contrary to law. Mr. Neel Kamal Sood had supported the award dated 26.3.2007. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The workman had appeared as PW-1 before the Labour Court. He has stated that he was engaged as daily in the month of March, 1994 upto 31.7.1994. He has further stated that two persons, namely, Dharam Pal and Jia Lal who were junior to him, were retained at the time of effecting his retrenchment. Shri Rajnish Kumar has appeared as RW-1 on behalf of the employer. He has stated that since the workman was engaged for a specific work, no notice was required to be issued and persons junior to him were not retained. - 3 - Admittedly, the workman had only worked for 99 days. The Standing Orders framed by the H.P. State Electricity Board had ceased to apply after 22.8.1992 and thereafter the working conditions of the workmen in HPSEB are governed under the provisions of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since the workman had not completed 240 days, the employer was not required to serve him with one month’s notice nor the workman was entitled to any compensation. The finding recorded by the Labour Court that the employer was required to issue 10 days’ notice to the workman as per clause 14(2) of the Standing Orders framed by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board is contrary to law. However, the workman while appearing as PW-1 has specifically stated that two junior persons, namely Shri Dharam Pal and Jia Lal were retained by the employer when he was retrenched. It is a settled-law by now that even if the workman had not complete 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months preceding his retrenchment, he can still invoke Section 25(G) and (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held in Central Bank of India vesus S. Satyam and Others, (1996) 5 SCC 419 that: “The plain language of Section 25-H speaks only of “retrenched workmen”. The ordinary meaning of the expression “retrenched workmen” must relate to the wide meaning of ‘retrenchment’ given in Section 2(oo). Section 25- F also uses the word ‘retrenchment’ but qualifies it by use of the further words “workman … who has been in continuous service for not less than one year”. Thus, Section 25-F does not restrict the meaning of retrenchment but qualifies the category of retrenched workmen covered therein by use of the further words “workman … who has been in continuous service for not less than one year”. It is clear that Section 25- F applies to the retrenchment of a workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year and not to any - 4 - workman who has been in continuous service for less than one year; and it does not restrict or curtail the meaning of retrenchment merely because the provision therein is made only for the retrenchment of a workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year. Chapter V-A deals with all retrenchments while Section 25-F is confined only to the mode of retrenchment of workmen in continuous service for not less than one year. Section 25-G prescribes the principle for retrenchment and applies ordinarily the principle of “last come first go” which is not confined only to workman who have been in continuous service for not less than one year, covered by Section 25-F.” The Labour Court has mentioned the names of two workmen Shri Gopal Sharma and Ganga Ram in the award, though the workman had disclosed that Shri Dharam Pal and Jia Lal were junior to him. However, the fact remains that as per the statement of the workman Shri Dharam Pal and Jia Lal were junior to him, but were retained by the employer. In view this the finding recorded by the Labour Court that there was violation of Section 25(G) and (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is upheld. It appears that the Labour Court has taken the names of two workmen “Gopal Sharma and Ganga Ram” from reference No. 209 of 2002. In view of the above discussion and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the workman was entitled to issuance of notice as per clause 14(2) of the Standing Orders framed by the H.P. State Electricity Board is set aside. However, the finding recorded by the Labour Court that there was violation of Section 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is up-held. Consequently, the award dated 26.3.2007 made by the Labour Court, Shimla shall stand modified as per the observations made hereinabove. The employer is directed to reinstate the workman as - 5 - beldar within a period of six weeks from today without seniority and back wages. There shall be no order as to costs. January 10, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma) (sck). Judge