DHARAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was engaged on muster roll basis in the month of May, 1997. He was retrenched in the month of September, 1998. The case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that he had completed 240 days preceding his retrenchment in a block of twelve calendar months. PETITIONER also filed a miscellaneous application bearing No. 3381/2000 before the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal to establish that the persons junior to him were retained while retrenching him in September, 1998. The respondents have not chosen to file any reply to this application. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has taken the Court through the mandays chart. A bare perusal of mandays chart reveals that the petitioner had completed only 227 days in a block of twelve calendar months before his retrenchment. However, fact of the matter is that four persons, namely, Sh. Pyare Lal Sh. Vishan Dass, Sh. Lekh Ram and Sh. Anil Kumar, who were junior to the petitioners, were retained while the petitioner's services were terminated." It is settled law by now that in order to get benefit under Sections 25-G and H, it is not necessary to establish that the workman had completed 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months.".

(2.) THEIR Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohan Lal v. Management of Bharat Electronics Limited AIR 1981 SC 1253 : (1981) 3 SCC 225 : 1981-II-LLJ-70 have held as under at pp. 75, 76, 77 and 78 of LLJ:

(3.) THEIR Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. V.K. Distillery Limited v. Mahendra Ram AIR 2009 SC 2205 : (2009) 5 SCC 705 :2009-II-LLJ-513 have held that even though the termination may be unjustifiable and illegal, it itself does not create a right of reinstatement with full employment benefits and full back wages. THEIR Lordships have held as under at pp. 515, 516 and 517 of LLJ: "13.........Although direction to pay full back wages on a declaration that the order of termination was invalid used to be the usual result but now, with the passage of time, a pragmatic view of the matter is being taken by the Court realizing that an industry may not be compelled to pay to the workman for the period during which he apparently contributed little or nothing at all to it and (sic) for a period that was spent unproductively as a result whereof the employer would be compelled to go back to a situation which prevailed many years ago, namely, when the workman was retrenched. 15. In deciding the question, as to whether the employee should be recompensed with full back wages and other benefits until the date of reinstatement, the Tribunals and the Courts have to be realistic albeit the ordinary rule of full back wages on reinstatement. [Western India Match Company Ltd. v. Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal AIR 1978 SC 311 : (1978) 1 SCC 154 : 1978-1- LLJ-206]. 21......Although services of the respondent have been terminated unjustifiably and illegally, it itself does not create a right of reinstatement with full employment benefits and full back wages."