THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. PRESIDING JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against Award dated 8.9.2010 passed by the Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla in Ref. No. 97 of 2007, whereby the learned Tribunal below allowed the reference made to it by the appropriate Government and held respondents No. 1, 7 and 9 entitled to reinstatement in service with seniority and continuity in service without back wages.

(2.) Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record are that the respondents-workmen (hereafter, 'workman') were engaged on daily wage basis in the petitioners' Department (hereinafter, 'employer') on different dates. Workmen further claimed that they had completed 240 days in each calendar year but their services were disengaged on various dates, in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter, 'Act'), without any notice or compensation. It is further case of the workmen that their juniors were retained in service and their services were disengaged, again in violation of the provisions of the Act. Accordingly they raised industrial dispute, and on failure to reach any amicable settlement, matter was referred under Sec. 10 of the Act to the Tribunal below by the appropriate Government, for adjudication of following term of reference: ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...

(3.) Workmen, by way of filing statement of claim before the Tribunal below stated that they were engaged on daily wages in the Irrigation and Public Health Division, Nahan and they completed 240 days in a calendar year. Yet their services were illegally terminated by the employer on various dates, in contravention of Sec. 25-F of the Act. Applicants further stated that they were neither given notice nor compensation and their juniors were retained in service. It is further alleged in the claim petition by the workmen that many persons were engaged after their retrenchment, which is in contravention of Sec. 25-H of the Act. It is further case of the workmen that at the time of engaging new hands, preferential right was of the workmen. Workmen further claimed that they were not gainfully employed during the period of their retrenchment.