All these petitions have been filed by the theBlock Medical OfÏcer-cum-Chairman, ExecutiveCommittee, Rogi Kalyan Samiti, Civil Hospital,¹Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P. against similar awardspassed by learned Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribuna.l, Kangra at Dharamshala, ordering reinstatement of the respondents on the post of ‘Safai Karamchari’ alongwith compensation in the sum of ₹50,000/- by way of back wages. Almost common question of law and facts are involved in these petitions. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, thetse matters are being heard today collectively. Reference to facts hereinafter is beingmade from the lead case i.e. CWP No. 3242 of 2025.

2. The Case.

2(i). Following reference was sent for adjudication by the appropriate authority to the learned LabourCourt:-

“Whether the termination of services of Smt. Shakuntla Devi w/o Shri Gurvachan Singh, R/o Village Rukval Lahad, P.O. Ghalour, Tehsil Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P. by the Block Medical OfÏcer-cum- Chairman, Executive Committee, Rogi Kalyan Samiti, Civil Hospital, Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P. w.e.f. 01.01.2022, 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 tofrom the above employer?”.

2(ii). The claim set up by the respondent was that she was appointed as ‘Safai Karamchari’ in December, 2014 at Civil Hospital, Jawalamukhi under Rogi Kalyan Samiti on monthly salary. She completed seven years of continuous service and completed more tHhan 240 days in each calendar year. She became eligible for regularization as ‘Safai Karamchari’ on completion of requisite tenure. Her work was never faulted with by her superiors. Respondent had also served the petitioner during Covid-19 pandemic and was awarded certificate of appreciation. On 31.12.2021, the petitioner terminated respondent’s service without any prior notice. The petitioner allowed ‘Safai Karamcharis’ to work on outhsource basis through contractor. Respondent allegedgthat her termination on 31.12.2021 was in violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as neither any notice was issued to her nor any inquiry was conducted by the petitioner. The entire process of retrenchment wascompleted within a day’s time.

2(iii). Petitioner denied having appointed the respondent as ‘Safai Karamchari’ in December, 2014. According to the petitioner, it had called quotations during the year 2013 through various contractors for providing workers for doing sanitation work. Respondent was an employee of one such contractor. The payment to the contractor was made from the fund of Rogi Kalyan Samiti through cheques. It was prerogative of the contractor to engage or disengage the workers as peHr his choice. Petitioner never had any direct control either over the engagement or disengagement of workers. The contractor was lastly paid in March, 2017. Respondent did not continue with the contractor. On 30.11.2021, an urgent meeting was called for reconciliation of part time workers’ engagement under Rogi Kalyan Samiti at Civil Hospital, Jawalamukhi. It was proposed to the contractor that he should adjust and engage the workers who had alrehady been engaged in sanitation work in the hospital.gThe workers were also given the option to work with the contractor. Two such workers agreed to serve under the contractor. Respondent however refused to acknowledge conciliation and to serve under the contractor. Hence, shewas not on post after 30.12.2021.

The parties led evidence in support of theirrespective stands.On considering the entire case, learned LabourCourt allowed the claim to the extent that petitioner was directed to reinstate respondent o