STATE OF H. P. Vs. KRISHAN CHAND,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these appeals, therefore, the same are being decided by a common judgment.

(2.) The common facts in both the appeals are that respondents in both the appeals were engaged as daily wagers by respondent No.2 in the month of May, 1996 and continued to work in the same capacity till 30/6/2006. The only difference is that the date of engagement of respondent in LPA No. 158 of 2016 was 17/5/1996, whereas, the date of engagement of respondent in LPA No. 85 of 2017 was 15/5/1996. Both of them were retrenched w.e.f. 30/6/2006. They raised their individual Industrial Disputes. The appropriate Government referred the matter to Labour Court-cum-Industrial Disputes Tribunal, Dharmshala, (for short, "the Tribunal"). The questions referred for adjudication to learned Tribunal in both the cases were substantially identical. Learned Tribunal was required to decide, whether the retrenchment of services of respondents in both the appeals by appellant No.2 vide retrenchment orders dtd. 30/6/2006, especially when, the Government had issued orders to regularize the services of all daily wagers etc. who had completed eight years of service as on 31/3/2004, was legal and justified?

(3.) Learned Tribunal registered Reference No. 54 of 2008 and Reference No. 455 of 2009 which now are subject matters in LPA Nos. 158 of 2016 and LPA No. 85 of 2017 respectively. Both the references were answered in negative vide separate Awards dtd. 11/12/2012. The retrenchment of respondents was held to be compliant with the provisions of Sec. 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act (for short, "the Act"). Whereas, sub-Sec. (a) and (b) of Sec. 25-F were held to have been complied with, sub-sec. (c) of Sec. 25-F was understood to be merely a directory provision and hence of no significance.