Case Details: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar [2025] 181 taxmann.com 374 (HC - Himachal Pradesh)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
- Anup Rattan, Adv. General & Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Adv. General for the Petitioner.
- Ms. Ritta Goswami, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Komal Chaudhary, Adv. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the Respondent-workman was engaged as a beldar from 29.09.1998 and continued till 17.02.2000, when his services were terminated. He asserted that he had completed more than 240 days and that other junior employees were retained while he was disengaged, and some co-workers were later regularized.
The Reference was then made to the Labour Court regarding the legality of the 1999 termination in breach of the Act and for consequential relief. The Labour Court held that termination was illegal and unjustified for non-compliance with Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as juniors were retained while he was disengaged, notwithstanding non-completion of 240 days and the employer’s plea of abandonment.
It was noted that though the claimant had not completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months as from the date of its termination, persons appointed after him and along with him were allowed to continue, and some of them were also regularised subsequently. Further, not only this, petitioners herein had taken a stand of abandonment of work by the claimant, which it failed to prove before the Labour Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that since findings returned by the Labour Court were clearly borne out from the record, there was no perversity in the order passed by the Labour Court and, therefore, the writ petition challenging the award passed by the Labour Court was to be dismissed.
List of Cases Referred to
- Raj Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh [CWP No. 4424 of 2012, dated 10-4-2013] (para 11).
The post No Interference In Reinstatement Of Workman | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
