LAWS(HPH)-2018-5-148

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HPSEBL Vs. JAGDISH CHAND

Decided On May 24, 2018
Executive Engineer, Hpsebl Appellant
V/S
JAGDISH CHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cmp(M) No.145 of 2018

(2.) Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record are that the respondent ( for short 'workman') was employed as Beldar on 25.11.1997 and he worked as such upto 24.04.1998, whereafter his services were dispensed with by the appellant without following due procedure, as envisaged under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( for short 'Act') . The workman claimed before the learned Tribunal below that though he was engaged on and w.e.f. 25.11.1997 as Beldar, but he was intentionally and purposely given fictional breaks to prevent him for completing 240 days in a year and ultimately on 25th April, 1998, his services were terminated by the appellant. Before the alleged termination of his services, neither any notice was served upon him nor he was charge sheeted. Similarly, there is no dispute that neither any inquiry for misconduct, if any, on the part the workman was ever conducted nor compensation, if any, was paid to him by the employer at the time of his termination. As per the workman, his services were terminated only on the pretext that works and funds are not available and he will be reengaged as and when work is available. However, fact remains that when the workman was not reengaged despite repeated requests, he was compelled to approach the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application, which subsequently came to be dismissed on 27.2002 for want of jurisdiction.

(3.) It also emerge from the record that appropriate Government failed to refer the dispute to the learned Industrial Tribunal on the ground that the workman did not complete 240 days preceding his retrenchment, however, this Court vide judgment dated 14.05.2012 setaside the order dated 4.4.2008, passed by the Labour Commissioner, Shimla and directed the appropriate Government to refer the matter to learned Tribunal below for determination and adjudication.Appropriate Government in terms of Section 10 of the Act, made following reference to the Tribunal: