The court found that the termination of the petitioner was unlawful due to the retention of junior employees, violating the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

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. 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. Qua Sect