The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Sections 25-F, 25-G, 25-H, and 25-T of the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing the preferential right of a retrenched employee for re-employment under Section 25-H and the impact of delay in raising the industrial dispute on the reference to the Labour Court.

JUDGMENT

Vivek Singh Thakur, J —Present petition has been filed assailing communication dated 23.2.2012 (Annexure P-1), whereby Labour Commissioner Himachal Pradesh has conveyed refusal on behalf of appropriate Government to refer the dispute to Labour Court under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as the Act), stating therein that dispute had faded away with the passage of time and was no more in existence and there was no justification for making reference to the Labour Court in view of judgments of this High Court passed in CWP No. 398 of 2001, titled M.C. Paonta Sahib Vs. State of H.P. & others, CWP No. 1486 of 2007, titled Laiq Ram Vs. State of H.P.

2. Petitioner was engaged by respondent No. 3 as daily waged baildar/Mate in December, 1997 as evident from mandays chart placed on record along with affidavit of Superintending Engineer of 7th Circle HPPWD, Dalhousi. However, he was disengaged in the year 1998, whereafter he had preferred an Original Application bearing No. OA (D) No. 388 of 2001 before the H.P. Administrative Tribunal, Dharamshala, which was directed to be treated as representation with direction to the Department to dispose of the same after hearing petitioner within six weeks from the date of passing of order i.e. 21.8.2001. In case of adverse order, the petitioner was granted liberty to assail the said order before appropriate form.

3. It is undisputed that after disposal of O.A. No. 388 of 2001, petitioner was re-engaged by respondent No. 3 in September, 2001, but thereafter also, frictional breaks were given to his engagement and finally he was never engaged after December, 2002.

4. In April, 2008, petitioner had submitted demand notice to respondent No. 3 vide application dated 8.4.2008, stating therein that the Department was violating the provisions of Sections 25-G, 25-H as well as Section 25-T read with Schedule V of the Act. It was specifically stated in the said demand notice that in case of retrenchment of daily rated/casual workers, preference has to be given to such retrenched workers on an offer for engaging the workman on dates subsequent to their retrenchment, but the Department was not following the said principle. An example of a person who was junior to the petitioner was also cited in the demand notice, who was allowed to work in the same division and to complete 180 days without offering reappointment to the petitioner, who was senior to him, but was retrenched by respondent No. 3.

5. The only defence of the respondent is that the dispute was raised vide demand notice dated 8.4.2008 after lapse of 5 years without giving any reason for delay and there was nothing on record to suggest that dispute had been kept alive by the petitioner over a long period of time, therefore, declining the reference of the petitioner/workman as per provisions of Section 12(5) of the Act vide impugned communication, has been justified by giving reference of judgments of this Court in CWP No. 398 of 2091, titled as M.C. Paonta Sahib Vs. State of H.P. and others, CWP No. 1486 of 2007, titled as Laiq Ram Vs. State of H.P. and CWP No. 1619 of 2007, titled Kamlesh Vs. State of H.P.

6. Section 25-F of the Act, deals with condition precedent to retrenchment of workmen. Section 25-G deals with procedure for retrenchment. Section 25-H contains provision for Re-employment of retrenched workmen. As per Section 25 a workman, having continuous service for not less than one year under the employer, shall not be retrenched unless one month notice as prescribed in Section 25-F is given, workman has been paid and notice is served to the appropriate government or such authority as prescribed in the Section 25-F. Admittedly, petitioner had not served for one year and had also not completed 240 days in a calendar year.

7. Section 25-G provides that employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person employed in that category. Section 25-H provides that after retrenchment