DR. HARBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises from order dated 15/07/2014 dismissing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7864/2014. The Learned Single Judge held that award of the labour court directing reinstatement of the respondent called for no interference because retrenchment had been done in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the "Act") and it was an admitted fact that persons junior to the respondent had been retained while he was retrenched.

(2.) Assailing the order under appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent was appointed on daily wage on 17/12/1993. His services were dispensed with on 23/05/2002. Being a daily wage, he had no right to the post. The requirement for a daily wage would depend upon the exigency of the work. The appellant cannot be compelled to re-engage a daily wage irrespective of the fact whether there is need or not. If the retrenchment was in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, appropriate relief is to grant compensation only. Whether a person junior to the respondent had been retained while he was retrenched is a question of fact. It was for the respondent to assert this fact specifically. Exhibit W-2 produced by the respondent in support of his plea for unfair labour practise by his retrenchment while retaining juniors and which has been relied upon was not an order reflecting date of appointment or seniority but a simple order of transfer of the concerned. The learned Single Judge erred in concluding on basis of the same that persons junior to the respondent had been retained while he was singled out for retrenchment. Reliance was placed on (2010) 9 SCC 126 (Incharge Officer v. Shankar Shetty) to submit that at best the respondent may be entitled to compensation of Rs.1 lac in lieu of retrenchment. Reliance was further placed on <B>2013 (136) FLR 908 (Asstt. Engineer Rajasthan Dev. Corp. v. Gitam Singh)</B> that reinstatement ought not to have been ordered and compensation should have been granted in lieu of the same.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent opposing the appeal submitted that there has been no procedural infirmity in the decision making process by the labour court. That the respondent had worked over 240 days and there had been violation of Section 25F of the Act while ordering retrenchment is not in dispute. The respondent's contention of unfair labour practise in retaining his juniors while retrenching him has been upheld by the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge. In any event back-wages have already been denied. The respondent has remained out of service since May 2002 and being approximately 46 years of age today is incapable of securing employment anywhere else. Reliance was placed on <B>(2014) 11 SCC 85 (Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi v. Hindalco Industries Limited)</B> in support of the submission that unless the labour court had committed any error in the decision making process, this Court should not interfere. Reliance was further placed on <B>AIR 2015 SC 357 (Tapash Kumar Paul v. BSNL)</B> Lastly reliance was placed on <B>(2014) 7 SCC 177 (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal)</B> for the alternative submission that in case of retrenchment of a daily wager after 2 years in violation of Section 25F of the Act, compensation of Rs.2 lacs was found inadequate enhancing it to Rs.3 lacs, whereas the respondent in the present case had worked for 8 years.