Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 508 (HP)

State Of Himachal Pradesh v. Bego Devi

2015-05-11

RAJIV SHARMA, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This petition is instituted against Award made by learned Labor Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, HP, in Ref. No. 16/2013 dated 28.10.2013. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that respondent-workman (hereinafter referred to as 'workman' for convenience Court sake) was engaged as a daily wage Beldar on muster roll basis in the month of June 1995. She was retrenched in the month of October, 2003. She also filed an Original Application before the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal against her retrenchment. Original Application No. 45/2004 was disposed of by the Administrative Tribunal on 31.7.2006. Workman raised industrial dispute. The Labour Commissioner after receiving failure report, made reference No. 16/2013 to the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal Dharamshala. Workman filed claim petition. Reply was filed by the petitioners. Issues were framed by the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal on 5.7.2013. Petition was allowed partly and termination of the workman was set aside. The Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal directed the petitioners to reinstate the workman. Hence, this petition. 2. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Advocate General with Mr. Anup Rattan, Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the workman has not completed 160 days and there was no violation of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate has supported Award dated 28.10.2013. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 5. Workman has appeared as PW-1. She has led her evidence by filing affidavit Ext. PW-1/A. She denied the suggestion that she abandoned the job. 6. Mr. M.P. Dhiman has appeared as RW-1 on behalf of the petitioners. He has admitted in his cross-examination that no notice was served upon Court the workman to resume the work. RW-1/A is the Man-days chart of the workman. Workman has not completed 160 days in the year 2003 as required in tribal area as per Man-days chart placed on record. She has only completed 140 days. However, fact of the matter is that at the time of retrenchment of the workman, one Shri Chunku Ram, junior to the workman, was retained. Thus there was violation of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. One Shri Chain Singh who was also junior to the workman was also reemployed in the year 2010. Opportunity of reemployment was not afforded to the workman by the petitioners. Thus there was violation of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. One Shri Chain Singh who was also junior to the workman was also reemployed in the year 2010. Opportunity of reemployment was not afforded to the workman by the petitioners. Thus, there is violation of Section 25-H of the Act. Workman was retrenched in the month of October, 2003. She filed OA No. 45/2004 before the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which was disposed of and thereafter she has raised industrial dispute. Reference has been made by the Labour Commissioner to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal. No objection was made to the reference so made to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal by the Labour Commissioner. Presiding Judge has only partly allowed the Claim Petition by setting aside retrenchment and ordering reinstatement of the workman. However, she has been held entitled to seniority and continuity in service from October, 2003. There is no illegality or perversity in Award dated 28.10.2013. Presiding Judge has correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence while answering the reference, of. According, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.