Point of Law : Daily wage earner – Termination of Service - Termination of the services of the petitioner was on the basis of FIR and the other accused therein stand acquitted, therefore also, the termination of the services of the original petitioner cannot be held to be sustainable in the eyes of law.

JUDGMENT :

By way of the present Writ Petition, the petitioner has primarily prayed for the following reliefs:­

“i) That the award passed by the Ld. Labour Court may very kindly be quashed and set aside as the Ld. Labour Court has totally failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances and evidence and given undue advantage to the evidence submitted by the respondent department while rejecting the legitimate claim of the present petitioner.

(ii) That the respondent department may very kindly be directed to re­engage the services of the petitioner as he has completed 240 days continuously w.e.f. 1997 to 2004 with all consequently benefits including back wages along with interest.”

2. As the original petitioner Shri Bisan Lal died during the pendency of the present proceedings, therefore, he was substituted by his legal representatives.

3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under:­

The original petitioner joined the service of the respondent/Department as a daily wage beldar in the year 1987, i.e. on 04.12.1987, in Sub­Division Ghanahatti, District Shimla, H.P. Thereafter, w.e.f. 16.08.1993 to 18.10.2004, he served as daily wage Water Works Clerk. He worked as such continuously without any break for more than 240 days in each calendar year. On 18.10.2004, the services of the workman were terminated by the Department on the ground that a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against him under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Boiluganj, District Shimla, H.P. This FIR was converted under Sections 409 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and eleven employees of the respondent Department were named as accused therein. As per the original petitioner, only his services were terminated, but no action was initiated against any other employees. The termination of the services of the petitioner was without any notice etc. and feeling aggrieved, he raised an industrial dispute. The appropriate Government made the following reference for adjudication to the Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal­cum­Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’):­

“Whether the action of the Superintendent Engineer, I & PH Circle, Shimla­9 (2) Executive Engineer, I & PH Division No.1, Shimla­9 to terminate the services of Shri Bishan lal S/O Late Shri Baboo Ram ex­daily wages water works clerk w.e.f. 9.11.2004 on the charge of embezzlement of government money amounting to Rs.10.77 Lacs without holding any domestic enquiry and without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is proper and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits and amount of compensation the above aggrieved workman is entitled to?”

4. Vide award dated 08.04.2011, the reference was answered by the learned Court by dismissing the claim petition and this led to the filing of the present Writ Petition.

5. As already mentioned hereinabove, during the pendency of the present proceedings, the original petitioner died and his legal representatives were thereafter substituted as the petitioner.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings as well as the award under challenge.

7. The following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal for adjudication:­

“1. Whether the action of the respondents to terminate the services of petitioner w.e.f. 9.11.2004 on the charge of embezzlement of government money amounting to Rs.10.77 lakhs without holding any domestic enquiry and without complying the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is improper and unjustified as alleged? OPP……..

2. If issue no.1 is proved, to what relief of service benefits and amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled to? OPP……

3. Whether the petition is barred by law of lispendense as alleged? OPR……

4. Whether the present petition is not maintainable? OPR……

5. Relief.”