IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Raj Kumar – Respondent
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:-
“Wh
Termination of services without compliance with Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act is illegal, especially when junior employees are retained.
The Labour Court's award was quashed due to insufficient evidence supporting the claimant's continuous service and failure to timely raise disputes, violating the Industrial Disputes Act.
Termination of services without following due process under the Industrial Disputes Act is illegal, and reinstatement with seniority is warranted.
The court found that the termination of the petitioner was unlawful due to the retention of junior employees, violating the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The court emphasized the power of the Labour Court to set aside termination and grant relief, and the employer's obligation to reinstate the employees.
The burden of proof lies with the claimant to demonstrate continuous employment and unjustified breaks; failure to do so results in dismissal of claims under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Delay in raising an industrial dispute can bar the claim, and temporary employees have no right to regularization outside constitutional provisions.
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 terminatio....
The court affirmed that compliance with the Industrial Disputes Act's procedural requirements is essential for lawful termination of employment.
Termination of employment without notice under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is illegal if the employee has completed more than 240 days of service.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.