IMPORTANT POINT
Workman would be entitled to benefit of section 25F only if he has worked for 240 days in the immediately preceding year of his dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

R.K.Agrawal, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 18.11.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in LPA No. 209 of 2011 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein against the judgment and order dated 07.07.2010 passed by learned single Judge in CWP No. 3761 of 2009.

3. Brief Facts:-

(a) Mohd. Ali-the appellant herein was engaged as Casual Labourer in the Agriculture Seed Multiplication Farm Bhagni, Dist. Sirmor, Himachal Pradesh on Muster roll basis during the year 1980. He worked as such till the year 1991 under different work schemes i.e., Rabi and Kharif and completed 240 days in a calendar year during the years 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1986 to 1989.

(b) It is the case of the respondents that during the period of engagement, the appellant had worked as follows:-      

It is further the case of the respondents that thereafter he abandoned the work without informing the Incharge Seed Multiplication Farm Bhagani and never returned to work.

(c) In the year 2005, the appellant herein made a representation to the State Government for making Reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). In pursuance of the Representation made by the appellant herein, the State Government made a Reference being No. 9 of 2005 to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla.

(d) Learned Presiding Judge, gave the Award dated 23.04.2009 in favour of the appellant herein and directed the respondent-State to reinstate the appellant in service with seniority and continuity while denying the back wages.

(e) Being aggrieved, respondent-State filed a writ petition being CWP No. 3761 of 2009 before the High Court at Shimla. Learned single Judge of the High Court, by judgment and order dated 07.07.2010, allowed the said writ petition and set aside the Award dated 23.04.2009.

(f) Being aggrieved by the order passed by learned single Judge, the appellant preferred a Letters Patent Appeal before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, vide judgment and order dated 18.11.2014 dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal while upholding the decision of learned single Judge.

(g) Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the appellant has preferred this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

4. Heard Mr. M.C. Dhingra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. D.K. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State and perused the records.

Point(s) for consideration:-

5. The short point that arises for consideration in the present case is whether in the present facts and circumstances of the instant case, the impugned order of the High Court calls for any interference?

Rival contentions:-

6. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the dismissal of the appellant was in violation of the provisions of Sections 25F read with Section 25B of the Act. Learned counsel further argued that the High Court misinterpreted Section 25B along with Section 25F of the Act. It was further submitted that it is not necessary that a workman has to complete the 240 days’ period during the period of 12 months immediately preceding his disengagement. Rather, he argued that inasmuch as once the appellant completed 240 days of service in any calendar year of his employment then he becomes entitled for the benefits of provisions of Section 25F of the Act.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submitted that the service of the ap