Termination of services without compliance with Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act is illegal, especially when junior employees are retained.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioners/State have challenged Award dated 30.06.2015, passed by the Court of learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court-Cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala (HP) (Camp at Mandi), in Reference No.61 of 2013, titled as Shri Raj Kumar Versus The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Sundernagar & another, in terms whereof, the Reference made to the Learned Labour Court was answered by it as under:-

“16. As a sequel to my findings on the issues above, the reference petition is allowed in part and the termination of the services of the petitioner is set aside and the respondents are hereby directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner shall be entitled to seniority and continuity in service from the date of his illegal termination except back wages. The respondents are also further directed to consider the case of the petitioner forregularization of his services as per the policies framed by the State Government from time to time.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that following Reference was made by the appropriate Government to learned Labour Court:-

“Whether termination of the services of Sh. Raj Kumar S/O Sh. Hira Lal, R/O Dhar, Post Office-Balag, Sub Tehsil Nihri, Distt. Mandi, H.P., by The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Sundar Nagar, Distt. Mandi, HP. & Range Officer, Forest Range Jhungi, Division Sundar Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. during the year 1999 without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employer?"

3. The claim set up by the workman/claimant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the claimant’) was that he was engaged as a beldar w.e.f. 29.09.1998. He continued till 17.02.2000, when his services were terminated. He had completed more than 240 days prior to the date of his termination. There was a violation of the provisions of the Industrial Tribunal Act as persons other than the claimant, namely, Desh Raj, Ramdayal and Prakash Chand who were junior to him, were allowed to continue and their services were not terminated and in fact, services of many persons who also engaged with the claimant were regularized. The claimant initially approached learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of an Original Application, which was dismissed on 15.12.2004 for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter, the claimant raised a Demand Notice in the year 2009, which has resulted in the Reference being made to the State.

4. The employers contested the claim on the ground of maintainability, delay and laches and also put forth the contention that the claimant was initially engaged as a casual labourer to carry out seasonal forestry works on 21.09.1998. He worked intermittently upto 20.08.1999 and had not completed 240 days, as alleged and he himself abandoned the job.

5. Learned Labour Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the termination of the services of the petitioner by the respondent during the year 1999 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged? OPP.

2. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR.

3. Whether the petition is hit by the vice of delay and laches as alleged, if so, its effect? OPR.

4. Relief.”

6. The issues so framed were answered by learned Trial Court as under:-

7. While deciding Issue No.1, learned Labour Court held that though the Mandays Chart demonstrated that the claimant had not completed 240 days as on the date when his services were terminated and in all, he had worked only for 168 days, however, there was a violation of the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act. Learned Labour Court held that the Mandays C