STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. DEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this Letters Patent Appeal, State has challenged the judgment passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No. 4566 of 2013, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Deep Kumar, decided on 20/8/2021, in terms whereof, learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants herein, upheld the award passed by learned Labour Court, wherein the reference made by the Appropriate Government whether the termination of the services of Sh. Deep Kumar i.e. the respondent herein, w.e.f. 1/7/1999 and retaining junior workmen, was proper and justified, was answered by the learned Labour Court in favour of the workman and direction was issued to the appellants to re-engage the workman, who was also held entitled to seniority and continuity in service from the date of his illegal termination i.e. 1/7/1999, except back wages.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the respondent herein raised an industrial dispute which resulted in the following reference being made by the Appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court for adjudication:

(3.) The claim of the workman was that he was engaged as a daily paid Beldar in IPH Division, Dalhousie, in August, 1996. He served as such up to 1/12/1998, when his services were discontinued. He filed an original application before State Administrative Tribunal, i.e. OA(D) No. 298 of 1999 against the fictional breaks being given in service by the respondents as well as against his illegal disengagement but this OA was withdrawn as an undertaking was given by the department before the Tribunal that the claimant had resumed his duties in the Department and that his services will not be terminated except in accordance with law. However, as the services of the claimant were again terminated on 1/7/1999, he again approached the State Administrative Tribunal against his illegal disengagement by way of OA(D) No. 334 of 2000. This OA was closed by the erstwhile Tribunal for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter, the claimant raised an industrial dispute. As per the claimant, his services were disengaged by the Department by violating the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act as persons junior to him were still on the rolls of the Department when his services were disengaged. Accordingly, the claimant prayed for his re-engagement with all consequential benefits.