EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HPSEB ELECTRICAL DIVISION Vs. JAGDISH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is maintained by the petitioner/HPSEB/employer (hereinafter referred to as 'the employer') laying challenge to the award of the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P., dated 15.10.2013, passed in Reference No. 281 of 2012, whereby the reference petition of the petitioner therein, who was workman and respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman'), was partly allowed and he was held entitled to seniority, continuity in service from the date of his termination i.e. 25.04.1998 except back wages and the petitioner herein was also directed to regularize the services of the workman.

(2.) Briefly stating, the facts giving rise to the petition are that the learned Tribunal below determined and adjudicated the following reference:

(3.) As per the workman, he was engaged by the respondents/employer as Beldar on and w.e.f. 25.11.1997 and he worked as such upto 24.04.1998 under the supervision of the Assistant Engineer, HPSEB Sub Division, Makriri. The workman was given fictional breaks and on 25.04.1998 his services were terminated by verbal orders. Before his alleged termination, neither notice was served upon him nor he was charge sheeted. No inquiry of misconduct was ever conducted and no compensation was paid to him by the employer. As per the workman his services were terminated only on the pretext that work and funds are not available and he will be re-engaged as and when the same will be available. The workman has further contended that he approached the authorities for his re-engagement, but in vain. The workman approached the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by filing an original application, but the same was dismissed on 27.02.2002 for want of jurisdiction. The fact qua dismissal of the original application was not conveyed to the workman by his counsel and he only came to know about this when he personally visited his counsel. Subsequently, a demand notice under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was served to the employer by him. Conciliation proceedings failed and the failure report was submitted to the appropriate Government, but the appropriate Government did not refer the matter to the learned Court on the ground that the workman did not complete 240 days preceding his retrenchment. The workman challenged the same order of not referring the matter in the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. by way of maintaining CWP No. 2758 of 2008, which was decided on 14.05.2012. The Hon'ble High Court of H.P. through its judgment dated 14.05.2012, set aside the order, dated 04.04.2008, of the Labour Commissioner, Shimla, whereby the Commissioner refused to refer the matter to the Court. Thus, the above said reference was referred by the appropriate Government to the learned Tribunal below for determination and adjudication. The workman has further contended therein that some of his juniors were retained at the time of his termination and some fresh hands have also been engaged by the respondent/employer. The workman was not re-engaged and persons, whose services were engaged by the respondent/employer on daily wage basis w.e.f. 25.11.1997, were regularized by them. The workman had also contended that the act and conduct of the respondent was not only illegal and unjustified but was also violative of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act. Lastly, the workman prayed for the substantives reliefs, viz., setting aside the termination order dated 25.04.1998, reinstatement, full back wages, seniority and continuity of service from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 25.11.1997.