Himachal Pradesh High Court: Services Terminated In Garb Of Retrenchment Based On Preliminary Report Inquiry Without Regular Departmental Inquiry Not Sustainable In Law
The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the Labour Court’s decision which held that when an order of termination is passed as punishment, it cannot be treated as an order of retrenchment.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the services terminated in the garb of retrenchment on the basis of report of the preliminary inquiry, without holding a regular departmental inquiry is not sustainable in law.
The Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed by the State challenging the Award by the Labour Court which held that the termination of the workman (Respondent) was “improper and unjustified.” the Labour Court had held that “where an order of termination is passed by way of punishment, then it cannot be treated as a simple order of retrenchment and an order of dismissal having been passed without holding a regular departmental inquiry is not sustainable in law.”
A Single Bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel upheld the decision of the Labour Court while stating, “In the present case also, in the garb of retrenchment, the petitioner-Department indeed terminated the services of the claimant as punishment on the basis of report of the preliminary inquiry, without holding a regular departmental inquiry, and therefore, the order of termination of services of the claimant obviously was not sustainable in law. This is exactly what has been held by learned Labour Court.”
Deputy Advocate General Sumit Sharma appeared for the Petitioner, while Senior Advocate Sanjeev Bhushan represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Respondent, who was employed as a daily wage Beldar in the Public Works Department (PWD), was served with the notice of retrenchment under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act). The basis for termination of services of the Respondent was his alleged misconduct, which he claimed was false and frivolous. As per the Respondent, no inquiry was conducted, nor the principles of natural justice were complied.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court noted that the Labour Court had relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nar Singh Pal v. Union of India (2000) wherein it was held that termination after preliminary inquiry is punitive, if the same is not based on a regular inquiry and the same is invalid.
The Bench pointed out that Section 25-F of the Act defined the conditions precedent to retrenchment of a workman and the term ‘Retrenchment’ was further defined under Section 2 (oo) of the Act as “termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action.”
Consequently, the Court held, “Herein, prima facie, Notice issued under Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act demonstrates that the same was issued on the basis of a preliminary inquiry held against the claimant for tampering with the official record. Because in terms of the preliminary inquiry, the claimant was found guilty of the said act, his services were retrenched. That being so, apparently and obviously the retrenchment of the services of the claimant was by way of punishment inflicted on the basis of a preliminary inquiry.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: The Principal Secretary (Public Works) to the Government of H.P. Shimla-2 & Ors. v. Ramesh Chand (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:3754)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Deputy Advocate General Sumit Sharma
Respondent: Senior Advocate Sanjeev Bhushan; Advocate Sparsh Bhushan
