Kanshi Ram Vs State of Hp

“Whether verbal termination of the services of Shri Kanshi Ram S/o Shri Shibu Ram daily wage workman by the Divisional Forest Officer, Foret Division Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. w.e.f. May, 2008, without serving charge sheet, without holding enquiry and without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, whereas junior to him have been retained by the above employer, is legal and justified? If not, to what back wages, service benefits and relief the above named workman is entitled to?”

¶22

3(i) Petitioner set out in his claim petition that his services

¶23

were engaged as a daily wage Beldar by the respondent in May, 2001; He served continuously till 31.03.2003; He had worked more than 240 days during the calendar years of his employment; His services were terminated under a verbal order on 31.03.2003; Petitioner’s termination of service was not in accordance with law, no reasons were assigned for his disengagement and opportunity of hearing was also not afforded to him; He was re-engaged by the respondent as Beldar on 12.02.2008; He worked up to 01.05.2008, whereafter his services were terminated again under an oral order. The petitioner alleged that no reasons were assigned for retrenching his services and no opportunity of hearing was given to him; Persons

¶24

3 ( 2026:HHC:6697-DB )

¶25

junior to him named in the claim petition had been retained; Despite availability of work, the petitioner was not reinstated. The petitioner contended that the above action of the respondent was in violation of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶26

3(ii) The respondents denied having engaged the petitioner as daily waged beldar in May, 2001. According to them, the petitioner was appointed as a casual labourer for the seasonal forestry works in April, 2001; He had worked intermittently till August 2008 and had never completed 240 days of work in any calendar year during his employment. According to the respondents, the petitioner continued to serve intermittently till August, 2008. Subsequently, he did not report for duty and abandoned the job. The respondents denied engaging any persons junior to the petitioner.

¶27

3(iii) The parties led their respective evidence. On considering the entire case, the learned Labour Court held the claim petition to be not maintainable and dismissed it, thereby rejecting the reference, giving occasion to the petitioner to institute this writ petition.

¶28

4. While dismissing the claim petition, the learned Labour Court took note of the evidence placed on record whereby the respondent had admitted to not giving any notice to the petitioner before terminating his services and having not conducted inquiry against him. The Labour Court also held that the respondents

¶29

4

¶30

( 2026:HHC:6697-DB )

¶31

contentions about “petitioner leaving the job of his own accord and free volition in the month of August, 2008 pale into insignificance, since the termination in question (as per reference) has not been impugned on any ground by the petitioner/workman.”

¶32

Firstly, in case respondent’s plea of petitioner’s abandoning the job is considered to have paled into insignificance, the learned Labour Court was required to return conclusive findings with respect to petitioner’s allegations of his services having been unlawfully terminated without issuing any notice and without conducting any inquiry. No such conclusive findings on this aspect are discernible from the record.

¶33

Secondly, the learned Labour Court appears to have been persuaded by the fact that the petitioner in his claim had asserted having worked up to 01.05.2008 and oral termination of his services w.e.f. 01.05.2008, whereas, according to the Mandays chart placed on record by the petitioner as well as by the respondent, the petitioner had presumably worked in the month of May 2008. I have perused the record. As per the Mandays chart (Ext. PW1/B) produced by the petitioner (PW-1), he had served 25 days in May 2008 and did not work thereafter. No question for disputing Ext. PW1/B was put by the respondents to the petitioner. Whereas, as per the Mandays chart (Ext. RW1/B) produced by the respondent, the petitioner had not worked in the year 2008 till August 2008. He

¶34

5

¶35

( 2026:HHC:6697-DB )

¶36

worked for 18 days during the month of August, 2008. Shri Ajit Kumar Thakur, who produced the Mandays Chart (Ext. RW1/B), could not satisfactorily answer the question with respect to the alleged wrong preparation of the Mandays Chart (Ext. RW1/B) and the same having been prepared differently from Ext. PW1/B produced by the petitioner. It is not the case of the respondents that Ext. PW1/B had not been correctly prepared by them. The Mandays Chart produced by the petitioner has not been disowned by the respondents. Both the charts have been prepared by the respondents.

¶37

That apart, learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal observing that since the petitioner had himself claimed termination of his services under a verbal order on 01.05.2008 and his having worked thereafter having been demonstrated on the record, held the claim petition to be not maintainable. The said approach does not appear to be in consonance with law. Oshiar Prasad & Ors. Vs. Employers in Relation to Management of Sudamdih Coal Washery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad, Jharkhand² reiterates the settled principle that the Industrial Tribunal is to confine its adjudication to the points referred for adjudication. In the instant case, the reference sent for adjudication to the Labour Court was as to whether petitioner’s oral termination w.e.f. May 2008, without serving a charge-sheet, without

¶38

2 (2015) 4 SCC 71

¶39

6 ( 2026:HHC:6697-DB )

¶40

holding an inquiry, and without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was legal and justified. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Labour Court was not justified. Petitioner’s serving the respondents during May 2008, would not have impacted the reference.

¶41

In the given facts and circumstances, the conclusion drawn by the learned Labour Court for holding the claim petition being not maintainable is not justified.

¶42

For the forgoing, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.12.2012 (Annexure P-7) is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Labour Court for a fresh decision. Keeping in view the age of the case, the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal is requested to expeditiously decide the case, preferably within six months. Records be returned forthwith. Parties, through their respective counsel, are directed to remain present before the learned Labour Court on 01.04.2026.

¶43

The instant petition to stand disposed of above directions. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶44

11^th March, 2026(rohit)

¶45

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

Kanshi Ram v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanshi Ram v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Soma Devi Vs the State of Hp and Another

Som Dutt Vs the Hrtc and Others

Sujan Singh Vs Hrtc and Others

Sanjeev Dhillon and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Kushal Singh Vs Hrtc and Anr.

Subhash Chand Vs Sanjay Gupta and Ors.