1 Whether approved for reptorting?________________________r_________________________________________

Petitioner-State feels aggrieved against the award passed by the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal Kangra at Dharamshala, allowing the reference of the respondent-workman under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act in short). In terms of the award, petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent-workman. Respondent was also held entitled to seniority and continuity¹Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes in service from the date of illegal termination alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum.

2. Following reference was sent for adjudication tothe learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal:-

“Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner Shri Tula Ram S/O Shri Kalu Ram, R/O V.P.O. Sadhote, Tehsil H.P. vide Sarkaghat, District Mandi 06.03.2010 demand notice dated regarding termination of his daily wages setrvices w.e.f. 08.7.2005 suffers from long delay rand laches? If yes, what are its consequuences? If not, what kind of relief he is entitledto?”

Petitioner had earlier preferred claim petitiondirectly before the learned Labour Court on 15.02.2011 under Section 2A of the Act. The said application was dismissed on 29.08.2011 on the ground of having not been moved within the period of limitation. Further, the Labour CommissionerH on 07.04.2012 declined to refer the dispute raised by the petitioner for adjudication again on ground of delay.Petitioner laid challenge to the order dated07.04.2012 in CWP No.1862 of 2017. The writ petition was decided on 28.06.2022. The Labour Commissioner was directed to make reference. The directions issued in the aforesaid writ petition were not complied with. Respondent-workman filed Execution Petition No.303 /2024 in this Court. The same was decided on 05.09.2024 with directions to comply the judgment dated 28.06.2022 within six months. It is pursuant to the above decision that LHabour Commissioner sent the reference of petitioner’s case for adjudication to thelearned Labour Court on 18.09.2024.The case set up by the respondent-workman wasthat:-

(i) His services were engaged by the petitioner-Public Works Department on daily wage basis w.e.f. 01.01.1999. He worked continuously without any break whatsoever up to 07.07.2005. He had completed 240 days of service in 12 calendar months preceding the date of his illegalretrenchment on 08.07.2005.H Respondent, during the course of his examination, asserted that though retrenchment compensation of Rs.11055/- was paid to him but he had returned it later to the Department.

(ii) The respondent alleged in his claim petition that the petitioner had not followed the principle of ‘last come first go’. Many persons juniors to him, had been retained in service by the petitioner-State. The respondent workman put forth the case of breach of Section 25(G) of the Act. The workman also alleged engagement of fresh hands by the petitioner after his retrenchment. NameHs of fresh recruiteeswere also given in the claim petition.Respondent- workman also asserted that somepersons, whose services had been retrenched alongwith him, had been reinstated by the petitioner pursuant to adjudication of thue references in their favour. It was asserted that respondoent-workman was similarly situated and entitled to samCe relief and treatment as given to such workmen. Respondent-workman alleged violation of Section 25(H) of theAct as well.It was further the case of the respondent thatbesides him, petitioner-State had retrenched the services of 1087 workmen; More than 800 workmen had been reinstated by the petitioner and had also paid Rs.50,000/- compensation to them in compliance of the awards passed intheir favour.On the above facts and pleadings, the respondent-workman prayed for setting aside of the order dated 08.07.2005 with further prayer to reinstate him with back wage