Point of Law: It is settled law that for attracting applicability of Section 25-G of Act, workman is not required to prove that he had worked for a period of 240 days during 12 calendar months preceding termination of his service.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

State has taken exception to the award passed on 27.06.2012 by the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal Dharamshala H.P., whereby retrenchment of the respondent-workman was set aside. State was directed to re-engage the respondent forthwith. He was also held entitled to the seniority and continuity in service from the date of his illegal termination i.e. 1.11.2006 except back wages. The award also directed the State to regularize the services of the respondent as per policies framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time.

2. Facts

2(i) The appropriate Government sent following reference on 12.07.2010 to the learned Labour Court for adjudication:-

“Whether retrenchment of the services of Sh. Ramesh Kumar S/o. Sh. Sahab Singh, by the Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division (B&R) Pangi at Killar, Distt. Chamba, (H.P.) w.e.f. 01.11.2006 and without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and retaining junior workmen, as alleged by workman is proper and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the aggrieved workman is entitled to?”

2(ii) The respondent in his claim petition pleaded that he was appointed as a Beldar w.e.f. April 2004 at HPPWD Division Pangi at Killar, District Chamba, H.P. He had been working continuously as such. His services were orally terminated by the petitioner on 1.11.2006. He made several requests to the State-petitioner for his re-engagement but despite availability of work and funds, the petitioner paid no heed to his requests. Respondent in his claim petition further made a grievance that several persons, who were his juniors had been continuing on their job on daily wages in the same division, but his employer (present petitioner) in breach of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) refused to re-engage him. Respondent further averred that he had completed 160 days of continuous daily wage services in the preceding 12 calendar months in the tribal area of Pangi division. The break, if any, in his service is owing to the inclement weather conditions of the tribal division. Respondent prayed for relief of his re-engagement with continuity of his service, back wages and consequential benefits. Prayer was also made for regularization of his services.

2(iii) The employer (petitioner) in its reply took up the stand that the respondent was engaged as daily waged Beldar during the year 2005. He worked for 78 days in the year 2005 and 92 days in the year 2006. Thereafter he left the job of his own and resultantly lost his seniority. The gist of the stand taken by the petitioner before the learned Labour Court was that the services of the respondent had not been terminated but he had abandoned the service at his own will. It was further pleaded that no junior persons to the respondent had been engaged by the petitioner.

2(iv) The claimant appeared in the witness box as PW-1. He reiterated his case as projected in the claim petition. He denied having abandoned the job in September 2006. The petitioner examined the then Executive Engineer, as RW-1. This witness produced the mandays chart of the respondent (Ex.RW1/A). According to this witness, the claimant had left the job on his own in September 2006 and never returned thereafter. The witness, however, admitted the suggestion given to him during the cross-examination that no notice was ever served upon the claimant after he had allegedly left the job. He also admitted to be correct that claimant had never been given any opportunity thereafter by the petitioner for coming to work.

2(v) On considering the respective stand of the parties, learned Labour Court passed the award on 27.06.2012. Reference was answered in the following terms:-

“As a sequel to my findings on the various issues, the instant reference/claim petition succeeds in part and the same is partly allowed. The retrenchment of t