Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 621 (HP)

Basti Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-04-03

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the award dated 12.10.2018, passed by learned Labour Court, in terms whereof, the Reference made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court was answered as under:- “As a sequel to my above discussion and findings on issues No. 1 and 2, the claim of the petitioner fails and is hereby dismissed with the result the reference is answered in favour of the respondents and against the petitioner. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for publication in the official gazette. File, after completion, be consigned to record.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this writpetition are that in an industrial dispute raised by the petitioner, the appropriate Government made the following Reference to the learned Labour Court:- "Whether termination of services of Shri Basti Ram S/o Late Shri Jattu Ram R/o Chiyali, P.O. Loja, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P. during March, 2008 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Renukaji Tehsil & P.O. Renukaji, District Sirmour, H.P. allegedly without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disptes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, keeping in view the delay of about six years in raising the dispute, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above ex-worker id entitled to from the above employer?" 3. The claim of the petitioner was that he was engaged as a Beldar in March 1998 on daily wage basis. His services were disengaged in March 2008 without following the procedure. According to the petitioner, there was violation of Sections 25-F, 25- G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act and in this backdrop, he raised the Industrial Dispute. The employer contested the claim by asserting that the petitioner had left the job at his own sweet will. He was not punctual and sincere in his work and except in the year 2005, he had not completed 240 days in any of the calendar year. As the petitioner had left the job at his own, he ceased to be a daily wager as from the year 2008. He was not punctual and sincere in his work and except in the year 2005, he had not completed 240 days in any of the calendar year. As the petitioner had left the job at his own, he ceased to be a daily wager as from the year 2008. The allegation of juniors being retained, i.e. Bahadur Singh and Daulat Ram Singh, who were engaged in the years 1998 and 1999 after the petitioner, was answered by holding that they were not juniors to the petitioner and they in fact continued to work alongwith the petitioner at various times. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Labour Court framed the following Issues:- 1. Whether the termination of the services of the petitioner by the respondents during March, 2008 without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is illegal and unjustified? OPP 2. If issue no. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what relief of service benefits the petitioner is entitled?..... OPP 3. Relief. 5. The Issues so framed, on the strength of evidence led by the parties, were answered by learned Labour Court as under:- Issue No. 1:- No. Issue No. 2:- Becomes redundant. Relief:- Reference answered in favour of the respondents and against the petitioner per operative part of award. 6. While answering the claim petition against the claimant, learned Labour Court held that in terms of the man days chart Ext. RW1/C, the petitioner was engaged in the month of June, 1998 and he worked with the Department till March, 2008. The details of the number of days he worked in each calendar year are as under:- for 209 days in 1998, 170 days in the year 1999, 163 days in the year 2000, 194 days in the year 2001, 120 days in the year 2002, 130 days in the year 2003, 180 days in the year 2004, 241 days in the year 2005, 213 days in the year 2006, 91 days in the year 2007 and 24 days in the year 2008. Learned Labour Court held that the above demonstrated that the petitioner had not completed 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding the alleged termination. Accordingly, learned Labour Court held that there was no violation of Section 25- F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned Labour Court held that the above demonstrated that the petitioner had not completed 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding the alleged termination. Accordingly, learned Labour Court held that there was no violation of Section 25- F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Qua Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, learned Labour Court held that though the petitioner deposed that Rajender Singh, Mahender Singh and Bahadur Singh were his juniors and they were still working with the department and stood regularised, however, the petitioner failed to produce the service record with respect to this plea and no appointment letter or service record was produced before the Court by the petitioner and therefore, in the absence of the said record, it cannot be said that they were juniors to the petitioner. Learned Labour Court held that, on the other hand, RW-1 had categorically deposed that Bahadur Singh and Daulat Ram were not juniors of the petitioner. On these bases, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 7. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Advocate General and also gone through the record of the case. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner conceded that as the petitioner had not completed 240 days in the 12 preceding months as from the date of his termination, therefore, there was indeed no violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act but learned Labour Court erred in holding that it is not proved on record that the persons junior to the petitioner were retained by the Department. She took the Court through the record of the case and submitted that the statements of the parties and cross examination of the petitioner clearly demonstrated that this fact stood proved on record and accordingly she prayed that to this effect, the award passed by learned Labour Court be corrected/modified. 9. On the other hand, learned Additional General submitted that there was no infirmity with the award. The findings returned by the learned Labour Court were directly co-relatable to the record. There was nothing on record that any person junior to the petitioner, as was alleged by the petitioner, was retained and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. This Court carefully scrutinized the award passed by the learned Labour Court vis-a-vis the material on record. The findings returned by the learned Labour Court were directly co-relatable to the record. There was nothing on record that any person junior to the petitioner, as was alleged by the petitioner, was retained and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. This Court carefully scrutinized the award passed by the learned Labour Court vis-a-vis the material on record. Learned Labour Court held that as the petitioner has failed to place on record the service record of the workmen, who as per him were junior to him and were retained while his services were disengaged, therefore, it could not be established that there was any violation of the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. 11. A perusal of the record demonstrates that Shri Rajender Singh, entered the witness box as PW-1 and he deposed that he was working as a daily wage Beldar since January, 1999, with the respondent-Department and the petitioner was working in the Department prior to him. His cross examination demonstrates that there was no suggestion put to him that he was not engaged in the year 1999, i.e. after the engagement of the petitioner. Similarly, a perusal of the statement of PW-2 Daulat Ram, demonstrates that this workman stated that he was engaged as a Beldar since August 1998 and he worked in the respondent-Department alongwith the petitioner. He further deposed in his examination-in-chief that the petitioner was working in the respondent-Department prior to him. Again, there was no suggestion put to him that he was not engaged prior to the petitioner or the petitioner was not working before his engagement. PW-3 Bahadur Singh also deposed that he was engaged as a daily wage Beldar in the month of January, 1999 and the petitioner was working alongwith him in the Department but the engagement of the petitioner was prior to his engagement. His cross examination also demonstrated that there was no suggestion put to him that he was not engaged after the petitioner or that the petitioner was not engaged prior to him in the Department. His cross examination also demonstrated that there was no suggestion put to him that he was not engaged after the petitioner or that the petitioner was not engaged prior to him in the Department. In light of the fact that when three workmen engaged by the employer categorically deposed in the Court that they had worked alongwith the petitioner, who was engaged by the Department before them, and no suggestion being put to them on behalf of the employer that they were making incorrect statements in the Court, and that their engagement was either prior to the petitioner or the petitioner was not engaged before them, the findings returned by the learned Labour Court that the petitioner did not prove on record that there were persons engaged after him who were allowed to be continued in service while his services were disengaged, are perverse findings. Learned Labour Court erred in holding that in the absence of the petitioner placing on record any service record/appointment letter etc. of the persons purportedly engaged after him, he failed to prove the violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. As it was evident from the evidence led by the petitioner, which went un-rebutted that persons were engaged after him and they themselves came and deposed this fact in the Court, the findings returned by learned Labour Court that there was no violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act are perverse findings and are liable to be reversed. 12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the award passed by learned Labour Court to the extent that there was no violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, is set aside and it is held that indeed when the services of the petitioner were disengaged, persons engaged after him were still on the rolls of the employer and therefore, his disengagement was bad in law. 13. Now the issue arises as to what relief should be granted to the petitioner. The services of petitioner were disengaged in the year 2008. Today, the petitioner is 47 years of age. He last served the employer almost 17 years back. 13. Now the issue arises as to what relief should be granted to the petitioner. The services of petitioner were disengaged in the year 2008. Today, the petitioner is 47 years of age. He last served the employer almost 17 years back. In light of aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that taking into consideration the number of days he had worked with the Department since his engagement, a lump sum compensation of Rs.1.50 Lac would suffice in lieu of order of disengagement alongwith seniority etc. Ordered accordingly. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.