2025:HHC:3416 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 2669 of 2016 Decided on : 25.02.2025 Narpat Ram. …Petitioner Versus H.P. State Electricity Board Limited and another. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Virender Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “That Award dated 19.7.2016 passed by the Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, H.P. in Reference No. 200 of 2002 may kindly be quashed and set aside and respondent Board may kindly be directed to re-engage the services of the petitioner with all consequential benefits.” 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the Award 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:3416 dated 19.07.2016, passed by the Court of learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, H.P., in Reference No.200 of 2002, titled Narpat Ram Vs. H.P. State Electricity Board, in terms whereof, the reference made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court, has been answered by the learned Labour Court as under:- “As a sequel to my above discussion and findings on issues no.1 to 7, the claim of the petitioner fails and is hereby dismissed and as such the reference is ordered to be answered in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for publication in the official gazette. File after completion, be consigned to records.” 3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that in an Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner, the following reference was made by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court:- “क्या अधिशाषी अधि यंता धि ० प्र० राज्य धिुत पधिरषद मंडल अर्कीी धिला सोलन द्वारा श्री नरपत राम सपुत्र श्री ीरू राम र्कीामगार र्कीा ष 1991 से धि#ना धिर्कीसी नोधि$स, ांच र्कीे तथा क्षधितपूधित मुआा धिदए धि#ना नौर्कीरी से धिनर्कीाला ाना उधिचत ै ? यधिद न ीं तो र्कीामगार धिर्कीस रा त एं सेा ला ों र्कीा क़दार ै?" 3 2025:HHC:3416 4. Earlier, learned Labour Court dismissed the reference on the ground of delay. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed CWP No. 5836 of 2010, titled Narpat Ram Vs. H.P. State Electricity Board and another. Said writ petition was allowed by this Court in terms of judgment dated 19.05.2016, Annexure P-3, by setting aside the Award passed by the learned Reference Court and by further directing the learned Labour Court to decide the reference on merit, in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the reference has now been answered by the learned Labour Court in terms of Award dated 19.07.2016. 5. The claim of the petitioner before the learned Labour Court was that he was initially engaged as a daily wage Beldar in the month of November, 1979 and he served as such initially up to the month of August, 1981, thereafter from the year 1982 to 1986 and from the year 1987 till 1991, when he unfortunately fell ill. According to the petitioner, after he regained good health, he approached the Authority to submit his Medical Certificate and requested it to allow him to rejoin the duty but he was informed that his services stood 4 2025:HHC:3416 terminated. Feeling aggrieved, he raised an Industrial Dispute which resulted in the appropriate Government making a reference to the learned Labour Court which already stands quoted by me hereinabove. 6. The contention of the petitioner before the learned Labour Court was that his termination was in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, as from the date of his illegal termination, he had completed more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months and further his termination was also in violation of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, as persons engaged after the petitioner, were retained by the Board, whereas, the services of the petitioner were terminated arbitrarily. 7. The claim was contested by the Board primarily on the ground of the same was time barred as well as on the ground that the petitioner had voluntarily left the job. 8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Labour Court:- “1. Whether the termination of petitioner by the respondent without notice, charge-sheet and 5 2025:HHC:3416 retrenchment compensation is proper and justified” OPP 2. If issue no.1 is not proved, to what service benefits, the petitioner is entitled to? OPP 3. Whether the claim is time barred and is not maintainable? OPR 4. Whether there is no enforceable cause of action? OPR 5. Whether the claim not maintainable in the present form? OPR 6. Whether the petitioner left the job of his own as alleged? OPR 7. Whether junior persons have been retained? OPR 8. Relief.” 9. On the strength of the evidence that was led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, the same were decided as under:- “Issue No.1 Decided accordingly. Issue No.2 Decide accordingly. Issue No.3 Decide accordingly. Issue No.4 Decide accordingly. Issue No.5 Decide accordingly. Issue No.6 Decide accordingly. 6 2025:HHC:3416 Issue No.7 Decide accordingly. Relief Reference answered in favour of the respondent and against petitioner per operative part of award.” 10. Learned Labour Court while answering the reference held that the petitioner could not prove that as from the date of his termination, he had completed more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months, therefore, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act were not attracted. Learned Labour Court further held that except the bald assertion made by the petitioner that persons junior to him were retained, no material was placed on record by the petitioner to substantiate this fact and, therefore, there was no violation of Section 25-G of the Act. Primarily by assigning the said reasoning, the reference was rejected by the learned Labour Court. 11. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this with petition against the Award passed by the learned Labour Court. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the Award passed by the learned 7 2025:HHC:3416 Labour Court as well as the documents appended with the petition. 13. The reference was rejected by the learned Labour Court primarily on the ground that in terms of Ex. RW1/A i.e. the Man days Chart, the petitioner had not completed more than 240 days in the calendar year preceding his termination. During the course of arguments, these findings returned by the learned Labour Court could not be demonstrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner to be perverse. 14. However, the findings returned by the learned Labour Court that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that persons junior to him were retained by the Board and thus there was no violation of Section 25-G, are bad findings and not sustainable in law. A perusal of the claim petition/statement of Claim, which is appended with the petition as Annexure P-2 demonstrates that in para no.3 thereof, the petitioner had specifically mentioned that there were many persons junior to him who are continuing to work in the respective Circle and Division of the respondent-Board. 15. Further, when the petitioner entered into the witness 8 2025:HHC:3416 box as PW1, he deposed in the Court on 13.09.2004 that persons junior to him namely Paras Ram, Joya Ram, Tulsi Ram, Jamna Dass, Bhagat Ram, Rati Ram, Paras Ram, Jiya lal, Rakesh, Lekhraj, Dila Ram, Roop Ram and Paras Ram were still working with the respondent-Board. A perusal of the cross-examination of the petitioner demonstrates that the petitioner was not given any suggestion in the course of his cross-examination that he had falsely deposed that persons junior to him were still continuing to work with the respondent- Board. In fact, the only suggestion which was put to the petitioner was that he had abandoned the job, which suggestion was denied by the petitioner. 16. Not only this, statement of the Additional Assistant Engineer, Shri Narottam Ram Sharma of Electrical Sub- Division, Arki, who entered the witness box as RW1, recorded on 26.07.2005 demonstrates that in his cross-examination, he deposed that in Sub-Division, Arki, Rati Ram, Bhagat Ram, Paras Ram, Jia Lal etc. were still working in the Department and their services stood regularized. He further stated that he could not say whether they were senior or junior to the 9 2025:HHC:3416 petitioner. 17. From the above, it is evident that whereas on one hand, the witness of the Board himself admitted that some of the persons named by the petitioner in his examination-in-chief, were working with the respondent-Board, he could not state whether they were senior or junior to the petitioner, which he could have had easily ascertained from the record, more so, in the light of the fact that his statement was recorded almost 10 months after the statement of the petitioner was recorded. Therefore, in the absence of Board refuting on the basis of record that said persons were senior to the petitioner, obviously adverse inference has to be drawn against the employee. 18. In the light of the said facts, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the findings returned by the Learned Labour Court in Para no. 18 of the Award that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that persons junior to him were retained by the respondent-Board and thus there was no violation of the provisions of Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act are incorrect and perverse findings. These findings are accordingly set aside. Award passed by the Learned Labour Court is held to 10 2025:HHC:3416 be bad in law and this Court holds that the termination of the service of the petitioner was indeed in violation of the provisions of Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, as at the time of the termination of the service of the petitioner, respondent- Board retained persons who were engaged after the initial engagement of the petitioner and it failed to prove that petitioner had abandoned the job. 19. 19. In view of the fact that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation now, this Court deems it proper that interest of justice would be served, in case, this petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner for his illegal retrenchment/termination as he cannot be reinstated. 20. In Raj Kumar Versus Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India (2016) 7 SCC 582, Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case preferred by the daily wager who was aggrieved by the interference in the order of reinstatement passed by the High Court and substituting the award with one- time payment of compensation of Rs.75,000/-, Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to enhance the compensation by 11 2025:HHC:3416 fixing it to Rs.2,00,000/-. While holding such, Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of the fact that the workman therein was working from 1984, though intermittently up to the year 1993. 21. Similarly, in District Development Officer and Another Versus Satish Kantilal Amrelia (2018) 12 SCC 298, Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to order compensation to the tune of 2,50,000/- in favour of the workman in lieu of reinstatement. In this case, the workman had also worked intermittently from 18.12.1989 to 12.02.1992. 22. In case Ranvir Singh Versus Executive Engineer P.W.D., Civil Appeal No.4483 of 2010, Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to direct payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.3,25,000/- in favour of the workman there in lieu of the reinstatement who he had put in eight years of service. 23. Therefore, there is no straight jacket formula as to what compensation a workman would be entitled to in lieu of reinstatement. 24. In the light of the fact that the services of the petitioner were terminated after he had served with the respondent-Board for a period ranging almost a decade but not 12 2025:HHC:3416 the entire decade, this Court deems it proper that an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- would be appropriate as compensation. Ordered accordingly. Petition allowed to this effect. In the event of compensation being paid to the petitioner within two months from today, the same shall not entail any interest. In case the payment is not made within the said period, then interest at the rate of 6 % shall be payable thereupon from the date of filing of the writ petition. 25. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge February 25, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)