KAMAL KUMAR Vs. HPSEB LIMITED & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition, is, directed by the aggrieved workman, against, the disaffirmative findings recorded by the learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, upon, the hereinafter extracted reference:-

(2.) A perusal of the musterolls, maintained by the employer, vis-a-vis, the workman, and, embodied in Ex. RA and RB, makes, a disclosure qua (i) the workman not completing the mandatorily contemplated period of 240 days, of, continuous service, in the year immediately preceding, the, stage of his purportedly abandoning his job; (b) nor hence, thereupon, it was incumbent upon the employer to mete, the, apt mandatory statutory compliance(s), vis-a-vis, the mandate enshrined in Sec. 25(f), of, the Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has, contended with much vigour before this Court, (a) that with the respondents/employers, rather enacting the HPSEB Industrial Establishment Standing Orders, orders whereof, stand, embodied in Annexure P-2, appended with the writ petition, (b) AND, with sub clause (2) to Clause 14 thereof rather hence carving an exception, vis-a-vis, the prior thereto provisions bearing analogity, vis-a-vis, the provisions cast in Sec. 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, (c) besides with a prescription standing embodied therein, vis-a-vis, even where any workman rather renders service, for a period, less than one year, yet his services being not amenable for termination, (d) unless, the order of termination is preceded by a 30 days' notice in writing, along with pay and allowance in lieu thereof, (e) thereupon, he contends that hence when RW-1, in his deposition, as, occurring in his cross-examination, has rendered acquiescences, that, in consonance therewith no notice nor compensation being purveyed to the workman, at the time of his purportedly abandoning, his job, (f) thereupon, evident non compliance with the mandatory afore provisions, hence renders the disengagement from service of the workman, to be both, illegal and unlawful. However, the aforesaid submission addressed before this Court also cannot be accepted, in view of the decision, of this Court, rendered in CWP No. 1383 of 2005, in a case titled as Executive Engineer Joginder Nagar and Sanju son of Sh. Gantu Ram, Village Dalana, PO Ballhjoli, Tehsil Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P. and Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, wherein this Court, has set-forth, the, hereinafter extracted trite expostulation of law:-