SUBHASH CHAND Vs. HPSEBL & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has maintained the present writ petition seeking following substantive reliefs:

(2.) Brief facts, as per the petitioner, giving rise to the present petition are that he was engaged by the respondents as Beldar on muster roll basis w.e.f. 15.10.1996. On 25.05.1997 his services were orally terminated without complying the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The petitioner filed a reference before the learned Labour Court, which was allowed on 29.11.2010 and he was ordered to be re-engaged forthwith, however, he was not granted seniority, continuity in service and back wages. As per the petitioner, the learned Labour Court while deciding his reference petition has adopted different yardstick and thus order dated 29.11.2010 may be modified. The act of disengagement of the petitioner by the respondents was wrong, illegal, null and void, arbitrary, discriminatory and against the settled legal position, as no legal notice was served upon him before his oral termination. Thus, the said termination is against the mandate of Section 25-F of the Act and the learned Labour Court has erred in not granting the petitioner seniority and back wages. The petitioner has further averred that other similarly situated persons were granted seniority and he came to know about this fact when he was not being regularized. Lastly, the petitioner prayed that the present writ petition may be allowed.

(3.) The respondents filed reply to the petition, wherein they have admitted that the petitioner was engaged as a casual worker, however, it is denied that the services of the petitioner were terminated by them. As per the respondents, the petitioner was engaged for a specific period and work w.e.f. 15.10.1996 for providing 11KV H.T. Line from 63 KVA, S/Stn. Tullah and he remained deployed as such till completion of the scheme, i.e., 16.06.1997. As the services of the petitioner automatically ceased after completion of the scheme, there is no procedural irregularity as mentioned in the Act. It is further contended by the respondents, that the petitioner did not work from 25.06.1997 till his re-engagement consequent upon the award of the learned Labour Court. As per the respondents, there is no violation of Section 25-F of the Act. The respondents, in order to comply the orders of the learned Labour Court, re-engaged the petitioner and he is working under them. Lastly, the respondents prayed that the present petition may be dismissed.