Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1595

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, C.J., RANJAN SHARMA, J.
Kamal Kumar - Appellant
Versus
HPSEB Limited & Another - Respondents
LPA No.19 of 2020
Decided On : 28-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate for Mr. V.D. Khidtta, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Adv. with Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Adv.

Workman must prove 240 days continuous service preceding termination; no adverse inference against employer absent summoning documents or evidence; short-service daily wagers ineligible for reinstatement, especially illegal appointments, warranting lump sum compensation.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 25-F, 25-B, 25-G, 25-H - Standing Orders - Clause 14 - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 - Labour law - Daily wager termination - Workman failed to prove 240 days continuous service in 12 months preceding disengagement despite opportunities - Burden lies on workman to establish claim via cogent evidence including muster rolls or witnesses - Attendance sheets unauthenticated and irrelevant to preceding period - No adverse inference against employer for non-production where workman neither summoned documents nor examined witnesses - Principles of evidence applicable though not strictly - Presumption optional, not obligatory without intentional withholding - Short service (58 days) under rural electrification, post-dating engagement by years, no proof of juniors retained or fresh engaged - Initial engagement backdoor, violating public employment equality - No automatic reinstatement or regularization right - Lump sum compensation befitting instead, considering delay (9 years to reference), superannuation age, acquiescence by conduct. (Paras 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14)

(B) Adverse Inference - Non-production of records - Failure of workman to discharge initial burden or summon evidence precludes inference against employer - Optional presumption, justifiable non-production in context. (Paras 8, 8(i), 8(ii))

(C) Reinstatement - Scope - Not justified for illegal/short-term daily wagers sans constitutional compliance - Monetary compensation meets justice ends, upheld in intra-court appeal limiting re-appreciation absent perversity. (Paras 5, 9, 13, 14)

Facts of the case:
Daily wage workman claimed service from 1985 to 1992, disengaged orally without notice or compensation, violating retrenchment procedures and last-come-first-go principle. Labour Court dismissed for lack of 240 days proof. Writ court set aside award but denied reinstatement, awarded Rs.2,00,000/- compensation with 12% interest. Intra-court appeal challenged for reinstatement, regularization, higher compensation.

Findings of Court:
Workman rendered only 58 days in 1992; claim unsubstantiated; compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- upheld as just; employer to comply if pending within six weeks.

Issues: Whether workman proved 240 days service, juniors retained; adverse inference drawable; reinstatement/regularization due despite short/illegal service; compensation adequacy.

Ratio Decidendi: Workman bears primary burden to prove continuous service and violations; unavailed opportunities imply waiver; no reinstatement for unregularizable backdoor entrants with minimal service, long delay; compensation appropriate balancing equities.

Result: Intra-court appeal dismissed; impugned judgment upheld.

Table of Content
1. lc dismissed claim lacking 240 days proof. (Para 6)
2. writ court granted compensation not reinstatement. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Appellant, Kamal Kumar, being the workman, has come up before this Court assailing the judgment dated 28.09.2018 [Annexure A-1] [referred to as the Impugned Judgment], passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWP No.9722 of 2012 in Re: Kamal Kumar versus HPSEB Limited and another, whereby, the appellant has been granted the relief of monetary compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- [Rupees Two Lakh Only] in lieu of reinstatement with directions to Respondent-Board to disburse compensation within six weeks from date of judgment with interest at the rate of 12% per annum commencing from the expiry of six weeks till realization; with prayer to set-aside the Impugned Judgment and for reinstating the appellant-workman herein, in service with all consequential benefits.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LABOUR COURT AND WRIT COURT:
2. For appreciating the claim in instant Intra-Court Appeal-LPA, the factual matrix detailing the proceedings instituted by the workman herein, before Learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal and thereafter before Learned Writ Court is narrated hereinunder:

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LABOUR COURT:
3. In proceedings originating from Reference No.89 of 2001, before Learned Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal, the Appellant-Workman filed a Statement of Claim on 22.09.2002 by setting up a case that he served as a T-Mate, on daily wage basis in the Respondent-Board [HPSEBL] w.e.f. 1985 to 20.03.1992 and had completed more than 240 days of service but his services were disengaged without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and also in violation of Clause 14 of the Standing Orders and by violating the principle “Last Come First Go” and by engaging fresh persons in violation of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was averred by the Appellant-Workman that he did not abandon the job and the disengagement was illegal and the Appellant-Workman deserves to be reinstated in service with benefits of seniority and back wages, etc.
3(i). Respondent-Board filed a Reply to the Statement of Claim, stating that in view of the Rural Electrification Programme, the Appellant-Workman and others who belong to adjoining villages were engaged on daily wage basis on different occasions for specific piece of work from 23.01.1992 to 22.02.1992 and from 21.02.1992 to 20.03.1992. The stand of the Board was that the Appellant-Workman had worked only for three months i.e. for 58 days in totality.
3(ii). No rejoinder was filed by the Appellant-Workman in the proceedings before Learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal. On 24.09.2005, the Appellant-Workman-Kamal Kumar stepped in witness box as PW-1 and on 18.11.2008, the statement of Shri I.P. Singh, Assistant Engineer of the Board was recorded as RW-1.

AWARD DATED 09.07.2009 PASSED BY LABOUR COURT:
3(iii). The Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, passed an Award on 09.07.2009 [Annexure P-3 in writ file] answering the reference by dismissing the claim of the Appellant-Workman for reinstatement in service with consequential benefits ; with the findings, that the Appellant-Workman had failed to prove that he had worked for 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding his termination and no evidence was led to establish that juniors are still working and the termination for non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and for non-compliance of Rule 14(ii) of the Standing Orders of the Board in not giving 10 days’ notice. Negating the above contentions, claim of the workman was dismissed by Labour Court on 09.07.2009 (supra).

CHALLENGE TO AWARD DATED 09.07.2009 [ANNEXURE P-3] BEFORE WRIT COURT IN CWP NO.9722 OF 2012:
4. The Award dated 09.07.2009 [Annexure P-3] was assailed by the Appellant-Workman-Kamal Kumar herein, in CWP No. 9722 of 2012 with the prayer for quashing Award and seeking reinstateme