Bhim Sen vs Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board

V.K. Sharma, Judge

The petitioner while working as Meter Ledger Clerk on the establishment of the respondent-Board on daily wages, was disengaged on 20.4.1985. Consequently, the matter was referred for adjudication to the court on the following reference at the instance of the petitioner:-

Whether the termination of the services of Sh. Bheem Sen s/o Late Sh. Nokhu Ram w.e.f. 20.4.1985 by the Additional Superintending Engineer, Elect. Division, HPSEB Manali, Distt. Kullu, H.P. without any notice, chargesheet and without complying Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is proper and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits the above workman is entitled to?

On adjudication, the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal ruled in favour of the petitioner and granted the following relief:-

RELIEF

In view of my findings on above issues, since the services of the petitioner were dis-engaged by the respondent in violation of Section 25-F of the Act and clause 14(1) of the Standing orders and therefore, the petitioner is held to be entitled for his re-instatement on the same terms and conditions in which he was working prior to his illegal termination with all consequential service benefits including back wages to the extent of 50%. The respondent is directed to re-engage the petitioner within a period of 90 days from the date of announcement of this award, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled for full wages on the expiry of said period.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled for a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3000/- as litigation expenses. The State Govt. if may feel it appropriate, may fix the responsibility on the officer(s) who have erroneously dis-engaged the petitioner fro the service. The reference is accordingly answered.

Once the termination of the petitioner was found to be in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and clause 14(1) of the Standing Orders and he was held entitled for reinstatement on "the same terms and conditions in which he was working prior to his illegal termination with all consequential service benefits including back wages to the extent of 50%", the natural corollary would be that he would be deemed to be in continuous service during the period he was disengaged and was ultimately reinstated in terms of the award dated 21.10.2005, passed by the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner in continuous service during the period he was disengaged, i.e., w.e.f. 20.4.1985 to his reengagement in terms of the aforesaid award dated 21.10.2005 and fix his seniority over and above his immediate junior as on 20.4.1985. However, it is made clear as an abundant caution that such seniority would be on notional basis and shall be reckoned for grant of further promotions to the petitioner in the cadre, but he shall not be entitled for any monetary benefit on this count, save and except 50% back wages granted to him by the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal under the aforesaid award dated 21.10.2005, which admittedly stand already paid to him. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.