STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION AND PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION Vs. SHRI NOKHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge herein in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is against the award dated 15.02.2010, passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Shimla, H.P., in Reference No. 53 of 2008, Nokhi Ram vs. The Executive Engineer, whereby the respondent (workman), a daily wager, has been ordered to be reinstated in service from the date of his illegal termination, forthwith with seniority and continuity in service, but without any back -wages. Admittedly, the workman had joined the employment of the petitioner No. 1 -State through petitioner No. 2 -Executive Engineer (employer) in November, 1996. Whereas, according to him, his services were terminated by the employer in August, 1998, the stand of the employer was that he had himself abandoned the job.

(2.) AGAINST the foregoing background an industrial dispute was raised by the workman, which was referred by the appropriate government for adjudication to the learned Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court in the following terms:

(3.) THE learned Deputy Advocate General submits at the very outset that the findings returned by the learned Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court to the effect that the workman had completed the requisite service of 240 days and his services were terminated by the employer are not based on the materials on record. In this regard a reference has been made to mandays chart, Ex. R -B, according to which, the workman had worked only for 27 days in 1996, 214 days in 1997 and 139 days in 1998. Thus, he had not completed the requisite service of 240 days during the year 1998 when his services were allegedly terminated, as in that year he had worked only for 139 days. However, the contention cannot be looked into favourably as the requisite period of 240 days is to be reckoned "during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made" as provided under sub -clause (a)(ii) of Clause 2 of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act'). In the present case, since the workman has alleged that his services were terminated in the month of August, 1998, the requisite period of 240 days is required to be considered during the preceding 12 calendar months, which goes back to August, 1997. A perusal of mandays chart, Ex. R -B, would go to show that during the period August, 1997 to July, 1998 the petitioner had, in fact, worked for 262 days and thus completed the requisite service of 240 days.