Bipin Chander Negi, Judge

By way of the present petition, a challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 11.12.2024 in CWP No.5957 of 2024, titled Registrar, Maharishi Markandeshwar Medical College and Hospital (MMU) Vs. Padam Kumar, passed by the learned Single Judge, affirming the award passed by the HP Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, dated 20.01.2024.

2. In the case at hand, vide notification dated 22.06.2018, a Reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter for the purpose of brevity referred as “Act”) qua the termination of service of the present respondent by the appellant was received by the H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla. In terms of the reference, the validity of the termination and the consequential relief to be granted to either of the parties were to be considered.

3. In the claim petition, it had been averred that the respondent had been engaged as a Security Guard in the month of October 2012. He continued to perform the same till 21.03.2017 when his services are stated to have been illegally terminated. As per the respondent, he had proceeded on leave on 07.03.2017, on account of death of his mother. But when he returned to duty on 21.03.2017, he was not permitted to join and his services were terminated. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that violation of Section 25-F had been complained of.

4. Other than the aforesaid, on account of engagement of a new worker against the post which fell vacant on his illegal termination, violation of Section 25-H had been averred in the claim petition. Besides the aforesaid, violation of Section 25-G on account of juniors being retained post termination in the service of the respondent was also alleged in the claim petition.

5. In response thereto, the appellant contended that the petition was not maintainable, was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the appellant claimed to be not an “industry”. On merits, it was contended that the services of the respondent had been engaged by a contractor and not by the appellant. Hence, according to the appellant, there was no employer-employee relationship inter se the parties. Other than the aforesaid, it was contended that the respondent had abandoned the job of his own free will and volition.

6. In the rejoinder filed, the respondent had controverted the averments made in the reply and reiterated those made in the claim. Based on the pleadings, following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the termination of the petitioner w.ef. 08.04.2017 is violative of the provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as alleged? If so, what relief the petitioner is entitled to? OPP..

2. Whether the claim is not maintainable as alleged, if so, its effects thereto? OPR….

3. Whether the petitioner is not a workman under the provisions of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as alleged, if so, its effect thereto? OPR….

4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party as alleged, if so, its effect thereto? OPR....

5. Whether the claim is not maintainable as the respondents college does not fall under the provisions of industry as defined in the Act, as alleged, if so, its effect thereto? OPR....

6. Relief.

7. Post framing of issues, evidence on behalf of both the parties were led. The respondent had appeared as the sole witness, who deposed in favour of the claim petition and similarly one Shri Ajay Singhal, Registrar of the appellant had submitted his evidence by way of an affidavit on behalf of the appellant. The aforesaid witnesses were duly cross-examined.

8. Based on the pleadings and the evidence led, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the respondent had worked continuously from October 2012 till 07.03.2017. The appellant had placed on record a photocopy of an appointment letter Exhibit RW1/C alleged to be issued by the Contractor dated 04.02.2016