jkti=] fgekpy izns'k

fgekpy izns'k jkT; 'kklu }kjk izdkf'kr

f”keyk]

f”keyk] eaxy

eaxy

eaxyokj]

kj]

kj] 15151515 ekpZ

ekpZ

ekpZ] 2011

] 2011

] 2011@24242424 QkYxqu

QkYxqu

QkYxqu] 1932

] 1932

fgekpy izns'k ljdkj

HIMACHAL PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION SHIMLA

NOTIFICATION

Shimla, the 10th March, 2011

No. HPERC/ 401.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 181

and Clauses (za) and (zb) of sub-section (2) of section 181, read with sections 57, 58, 59 and clause

(i) of sub-section (1) of section 86, of the Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003) and all other powers

enabling it in this behalf, the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission proposes to

amend the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Performance

Standards) Regulations, 2010 published in the Rajpatra, Himachal Pradesh, dated 12th October,

257&jkti=@2011&15&3&2011

¼9599½

9600

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 15 ekpZ] 2011@24 QkYxqu] 1932

2010. The draft amendment as required by sub-section (3) of section 181 of the said Act is hereby

published for the information of all the persons likely to be affected thereby; and notice is hereby

given that the said draft amendment will be taken into consideration after the expiry of thirty days

form the date of its publication in the Rajpatra, Himachal Pradesh, together with any objections or

suggestions which may within the aforesaid period be received in respect thereto.

The objections or suggestions in this behalf should be addressed to the Secretary, Himachal

Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, Keonthal Commercial Complex, Khalini, Shimla—

171002.

DRAFT REGULATIONS

Short title and commencement.— (1) These regulations shall be called the Himachal

Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Performance Standards) (First

Amendment), Regulations, 2011.

(2) These regulations shall come into force from the date of their publication in the

Rajpatra, Himachal Pradesh.

Amendment of Regulation 4.—In sub-regulation (2) of regulation 4 of the Himachal

Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Performance Standards) Regulations,

2010 (here after called as the said regulations).—

(a) the sign “-I ” after the word “Schedule” shall be omitted; and

(b) for the words and figures “ 31st March,2011”, the words and figures “31st March,

2012” shall be substituted.

Amendment of Schedule.— In the Schedule to the said regulations in item (4) (I) for

the words and figures“1st April,2011”,the words and figures “1st April, 2012” shall be substituted.

By the order of the Commission,

-Sd-

Secretary.

_____________

In the Court of Dr. Madhu Chaudhary, HPAS, Sub-Divisional Magistrate Dalhousie, District

Chamba, Himachal Pradesh

Shri Tenzin Yang Keg daughter of Late Shri Kalsang, r/o T.R.H.C. Bakrota, Tehsil

Dalhousie, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh

. . Applicant.

Versus

General public

Notice under section 13 (3) of the Birth and Death Registration Act.

Whereas Shri Tenzin Yang Keg daughter of Late Shri Kalsang, r/o T.R.H.C. Bakrota,

Tehsil Dalhousie, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh has filed an application alongwith an

affidavit regarding the registratioin of date of her birth i.e. on 1-7-1976 for entry in the record of

concerned Municipal Council, Dalhousie, thereof.

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 15 ekpZ] 2011@24 QkYxqu] 1932

9601

Hence, this notice is issued to the general public that if any one has any objection/Claim

regarding the registration of date of her birth in the concerned Municipal Council, Dalhousie, they

may file their claim/objections on or before the 28-3-2011 in this court failing which necessary

orders will be passed to the concerned Municipal Council, Dalhousie for registration.

Given today the 28-2-2011 under my signature and seal of this Court.

Seal.

DR. MADHU CHAUDHARY,

Sub-Divisional Magistrate,

Dalhousie, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh.

__________

In the Court of Dr. Madhu Chaudhary, Sub-Divisional Magistrate Dalhousie, District

Chamba, Himachal Pradesh

Shri Tashi Lungtok son of Shri Sangyal Dorjee, r/o T.R.H.C. Middle Bakrota, Tehsil

Dalhousie, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh

. . Applicant.

Versus

General public

Notice under section 13 (3) of the Birth and Death Registration Act.

Whereas Shri Tashi Lungtok son of Shri Sangyal Dorjee, r/o T.R.H.C. Middle Bakrota,

Tehsil Dalhousie, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh has filed an application alongwith an

affidavit regarding the registratioin of date of his birth i.e. on 8-4-1991 for entry in the record of

concerned Municipal Council, Dalhousie, thereof.

Hence, this notice is issued to the general public that if any one has any objection/Claim

regarding the registration of date of his birth in the concerned Municipal Council, Dalhousie, they

may file their claim/objections on or before the 28-3-2011 in this court failing which necessary

orders will be passed to the concerned Municipal Council, Dalhousie for registration.

Given today the 28-2-2011 under my signature and seal of this Court.

Seal.

DR. MADHU CHAUDHARY,

Sub-Divisional Magistrate,

Dalhousie, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh.

__________

In the Court of Dr. Madhu Chaudhary, Sub-Divisional Magistrate Dalhousie, District

Chamba, Himachal Pradesh

Shri Tenzin Gyaltsen son of Shri Tsering Chogyal, r/o T.R.H.C. Bakrota, Tehsil Dalhousie,

District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh

. . Applicant.

Versus

General public

9602

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 15 ekpZ] 2011@24 QkYxqu] 1932

Notice under section 13 (3) of the Birth and Death Registration Act.

Whereas Shri Tenzin Gyaltsen son of Shri Tsering Chogyal, r/o T.R.H.C. Bakrota, Tehsil

Dalhousie, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh has filed an application alongwith an affidavit

regarding the registratioin of date of his birth i.e. on 8-7-1975 for entry in the record of concerned

Municipal Council, Dalhousie, thereof.

Hence, this notice is issued to the general public that if any one has any objection/Claim

regarding the registration of date of his birth in the concerned Municipal Council, Dalhousie, they

may file their claim/objections on or before the 28-3-2011 in this court failing which necessary

orders will be passed to the concerned Municipal Council, Dalhousie for registration.

Given today the 28-2-2011 under my signature and seal of this Court.

Seal.

DR. MADHU CHAUDHARY,

Sub-Divisional Magistrate,

Dalhousie, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh.

__________

In the Court of Dr. Madhu Chaudhary, Sub-Divisional Magistrate Dalhousie, District

Chamba, Himachal Pradesh

Shri Tenzin Gyaltsen son of Shri Tsering Chogyal, r/o T.R.H.C. Middle Bakrota, Tehsil

Dalhousie, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh

. . Applicant.

Versus

General public

Notice under section 13 (3) of the Birth and Death Registration Act.

Whereas Shri Tenzin Gyaltsen son of Shri Tsering Chogyal, r/o T.R.H.C. Middle Bakrota,

Tehsil Dalhousie, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh has filed an application alongwith an

affidavit regarding the registration of date of death of his brother-in-law namely Mr. Sangye s/o

Shri Tamdin i.e. on 3-12-2002 for entry in the record of concerned Municipal Council, Dalhousie,

thereof.

Hence, this notice is issued to the general public that if any one has any objection/Claim

regarding the registration of date of death of his brother-in-law in the concerned Municipal

Council, Dalhousie, they may file their claim/objections on or before the 28-3-2011 in this court

failing which necessary orders will be passed to the concerned Municipal Council, Dalhousie for

registration.

Given today the 28-2-2011 under my signature and seal of this Court.

Seal.

DR. MADHU CHAUDHARY,

Sub-Divisional Magistrate,

Dalhousie, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh.

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 15 ekpZ] 2011@24 QkYxqu] 1932

9603

c vnkyr Jh jkt dqekj oekZ] lgk;d lekgrkZ f}rh; Js.kh] Fkqjy] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'k

eqdÌek rdlhe ua0 2@2010@,l0Vh0Vh0

rkjh[k is'kh % 1@4@2011

Jh mÙke pUn iq= Jh ihatk jke o vU;] fuoklh x< [kkl] ekStk x< tewyk] mi&rglhy Fkqjy]

ftyk dkaxM+k ¼fg0 iz0½

- - izkFkhZx.kA

cuke

Jherh xhrk nsoh vkfn

- - izfroknhx.kA

lEeu cuke % 1- Jherh xhrk nsoh iRuh Lo0 Jh jkftUnz dqekj mQZ lqfjUnz dqekj] 2- Jh mÙke pUn iq=]

3- enu yky iq=] 4- eku pUn iq=] 5- deZ pUn iq= o] 6 deyk nsoh iRuh Lo0 Jh eqU'kh

jke] 7- 'kEEkw dqekj iq= Jh ns'k jkt] 8- fcV~Vks nsoh iq=h Jherh eksjuh nsoh] 9- fceyk

nsoh iq=h Jh jke jFk] 10- Qh.Mw jke iq= Jh ukFkw jke lHkh fuoklh egky x< [kkl] ekStk

o mi&rglhy Fkqjy] ftyk dkaxM+k ¼fg0 iz0½

- - izfroknhx.kA

fo"k;-&&rdlhe Hkwfe [kkrk ua0 19] [krkSuh uEcj 20] [kljk fdÙkk 179] jdok rknknh 0&15&61 gSd0]

ckD;k egky x< [kkl] ekStk x< tewyk] mi&rglhy Fkqjy] ftyk dkaxM+kA

b'rgkj eqL=h equknh %

Jh mÙke pUn fuoklh egky x< [kkl] ekStk x< tewyk] mi&rglhy Fkqjy] ftyk dkaxM+k us

vnkyr esa [kkrk ua0 19 dh rdlhe nk;j dj j[kh gS ftlesa mDr of.kZr izfroknhx.k dh rkehy

ckj&ckj leu tkjh djus ij ugha gks ik jgh gS vkSj u gh izkFkhZ dks budk lgh irk ekywe gSA izkFkhZ us

budk lgh irk izkIr u gksus ckjs viuh vleFkZrk trkbZ gSA vr% vnkyr dks fo'okl gks x;k gS fd mDr

izfroknhx.k dh rkehy lk/kkj.k rjhds ls ugha gks ldrh gSA

vr% mDr of.kZr izfroknh dks bl b'rgkj eqL=h equknh }kjk lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd og mDr

eqdÌek dh iSjoh gsrq vlkyru ;k odkyru rkjh[k is'kh 1&4&2011 dks gkftj vnkyr gksdj iSjoh

eqdÌek djsaA ckn rkjh[k is'kh fdlh fdLe dk mtj ,oa ,rjkt ugha lquk tkosxk o ,drjQk dk;Zokgh

vey esa ykbZ tkdj vxkeh vkns'k ikfjr dj fn;k tkosxkA

;g b'rgkj esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr ls vkt fnukad 21&2&2010 dks tkjh gqvkA

eksgjA

jkt dqekj oekZ]

lgk;d lekgrkZ f}rh; Js.kh]

Fkqjy] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'kA

&&&&&&&

c vnkyr Jh jkt dqekj oekZ] lgk;d lekgrkZ f}rh; Js.kh] Fkqjy] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'k

eqdÌek rdlhe ua0 3@2010@,l0Vh0Vh0

rkjh[k is'kh % 1@4@2011

Jh mÙke pUn iq= Jh ihatk jke o vU;] fuoklh x< [kkl] ekStk x< tewyk] mi&rglhy Fkqjy]

ftyk dkaxM+k ¼fg0 iz0½

- - izkFkhZx.kA

cuke

9604

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 15 ekpZ] 2011@24 QkYxqu] 1932

Jherh xhrk nsoh vkfn

- - izfroknhx.kA

lEeu cuke % 1- Jherh xhrk nsoh iRuh Lo0 Jh jkftUnz dqekj mQZ lqfjUnz dqekj] 2- Jh mÙke pUn iq=]

3- enu yky iq=] 4- eku pUn iq=] 5- deZ pUn iq= o] 6 deyk nsoh iRuh Lo0 Jh eqU'kh

jke] 7- 'kEEkw dqekj iq= Jh ns'k jkt] 8- fcV~Vks nsoh iq=h Jherh eksjuh nsoh] 9- fceyk nsoh

iq=h Jh jke jFk] lHkh fuoklh egky x< [kkl] ekStk o mi&rglhy Fkqjy] ftyk dkaxM+k

¼fg0 iz0½

- - izfroknhx.kA

fo"k;-&&rdlhe Hkwfe [kkrk ua0 18] [krkSuh uEcj 19] [kljk fdÙkk 4] jdok rknknh 0&07&29 gSd0]

ckD;k egky x< [kkl] ekStk x< tewyk] mi&rglhy Fkqjy] ftyk dkaxM+kA

b'rgkj eqL=h equknh %

Jh mÙke pUn fuoklh egky x< [kkl] ekStk x< tewyk] mi&rglhy Fkqjy] ftyk dkaxM+k us

vnkyr esa [kkrk ua0 18 dh rdlhe nk;j dj j[kh gS ftlesa mDr of.kZr izfroknhx.k dh rkehy

ckj&ckj leu tkjh djus ij ugha gks ik jgh gS vkSj u gh izkFkhZ dks budk lgh irk ekywe gSA izkFkhZ us

budk lgh irk izkIr u gksus ckjs viuh vleFkZrk trkbZ gSA vr% vnkyr dks fo'okl gks x;k gS fd mDr

izfroknhx.k dh rkehy lk/kkj.k rjhds ls ugha gks ldrh gSA

vr% mDr of.kZr izfroknh dks bl b'rgkj eqL=h equknh }kjk lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd og mDr

eqdÌek dh iSjoh gsrq vlkyru ;k odkyru rkjh[k is'kh 1&4&2011 dks gkftj vnkyr gksdj iSjoh

eqdÌek djsaA ckn rkjh[k is'kh fdlh fdLe dk mtj ,oa ,rjkt ugha lquk tkosxk o ,drjQk dk;Zokgh

vey esa ykbZ tkdj vxkeh vkns'k ikfjr dj fn;k tkosxkA

;g b'rgkj esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr ls vkt fnukad 21&2&2010 dks tkjh gqvkA

eksgjA

jkt dqekj oekZ]

lgk;d lekgrkZ f}rh; Js.kh]

Fkqjy] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'kA

&&&&&&&

c vnkyr Jh jkt dqekj oekZ] lgk;d lekgrkZ f}rh; Js.kh] Fkqjy] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'k

eqdÌek n#Lrh ukeA

rkjh[k is'kh % 8@4@2011

Jherh lqeuk nsoh mQZ d'kehjks nsoh iRuh Jh vkse izdk'k jk.kk] fuoklh oyksg] Mkd?kj lkbZ]

mi&rglhy Fkqjy] ftyk dkaxM+k ¼fg0 iz0½A

cuke

vke turk

fo"k;-&&izkFkZuk&i= n#Lrh uke iapk;r vfHkys[k xzke iapk;r oyksg] mi&rglhy Fkqjy] ftyk dkaxM+k

b'rgkj eqL=h equknh %

Jherh lqeuk nsoh mQZ d'kehjks nsoh iRuh Jh vkse izdk'k jk.kk] fuoklh oyksg] Mkd?kj lkbZ]

mi&rglhy Fkqjy] ftyk dkaxM+k us izkFkZUkk&i= e; 'kiFk&i= is'k fd;k gS fd mldk uke iapk;r

vfHkys[k xzke iapk;r oyksg esa lqeuk nsoh ntZ gS] ijUrq mlds 'kS{kf.kd vfHkys[k esa d'kehjks nsoh ntZ gSA

nksuks gh uke izkfFkZ;k ds gSaA izkfFkZ;k iapk;r vfHkys[k oyksg esa uke n#Lrh djok djds lqeuk nsoh miuke

d'kehjks nsoh djokuk pkgrh gSA

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 15 ekpZ] 2011@24 QkYxqu] 1932

9605

vr% izkfFkZ;k dk vkosnu Lohdkj djrs gq, b'rgkj jkti= }kjk vke turk dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk

gS fd ;fn fdlh O;fDr dks izkfFkZ;k ds uke dh iapk;r vfHkys[k xzke iapk;r oyksg] mi&rglhy Fkqjy esa

n#Lr djus ckjs dksbZ mtj ,oa ,rjkt gks rks og vlkyru ;k odkyru rkjh[k is'kh 8&4&2011 dks

gkftj vnkyr gksdj viuk mtj is'k dj ldrk gSA ckn rkjh[k is'kh fdlh fdLe dk mtj ,oa ,rjkt

ugha lquk tkosxk o uke n#Lrh dk vkns'k ikfjr dj fn;k tkosxkA

;g b'rgkj eksgj vnkyr o esjs gLrk{kj ls vkt fnukad 4&3&2011 dks tkjh gqvkA

eksgjA

jkt dqekj oekZ]

lgk;d lekgrkZ f}rh; Js.kh]

Fkqjy] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'kA

&&&&&&&

In the Court of Shri Rajeshwar Goel (H.A.S.), Special Marriage Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional

Magistrate, Manali, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh

In the matter of :

Shri Thakur Dass s/o Shri Gokal Chand, r/o Village and P. O. Bran, Tehsil Manali, District

Kullu, Himachal Pradesh and Smt. Sita Devi d/o Shri Khub Ram r/o Village Chechoga, P. O.

Manali, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.

Versus

General Public

An application for registration of Marriage under Special Marriage Act, 1954.

Whereas Shri Thakur Dass s/o Shri Gokal Chand, r/o Village and P. O. Bran, Tehsil Manali,

District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh and Smt. Sita Devi d/o Shri Khub Ram r/o Village Chechoga,

P. O. Manali, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh has presented an application on

28-2-2011 in this Court for the registration of marriage under Special Marriage Act, 1954. Hence

this proclamation is hereby issued for the information of general public that if any persons have

any objection for the registration of the above marriage can appear in this court on 28-3-2011 at

2.00 P. M. to object registration of above marriage personally or through an authorized agent failing

which this marriage will be registered under this Act, 1954 accordingly.

Given under my hand and seal of the Court on 28-2-2011.

Seal.

RAJESHWAR GOEL,

Special Marriage Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate,

Manali, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.

9606

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 15 ekpZ] 2011@24 QkYxqu] 1932

In the Court of Shri Layak Ram Negi, Sub-Divisional Magistrate Shimla(R), District Shimla,

Himachal Pradesh

Shri Suraj Pal s/o Late Shri Devi Ram, r/o Pateud, P. O. Anandpur, Tehsil and Distt. Shimla

(H. P.)

..Applicant.

Versus

General Public

..Respondent.

Whereas Shri Suraj Pal s/o Late Shri Devi Ram, r/o Pateud, P. O. Anandpur, Tehsil and

Distt. Shimla has filed an application along with an affidavit in the court of undersigned under

section 13 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1969 to enter his name Suraj Pal Sharma

instead of Suraj Pal in the Parivar Register in Gram Panchayat Anandpur has stated no objection to

Sl.

No.

Name of the family members

Relation

Date of death

Suraj Pal Alias Suraj Pal Sharma

s/o Late Shri Devi Ram, r/o

Pateud, G. P. Anandpur.

1968

Hence, this proclamation is issued to the general public if they have any objection/claim

regarding registration of names of the applicant may file their claim/objection on or before one

month of publication of this notice in Government Gazette in this court, failing which necessary

orders will be passed.

Given today 10th March, 2011 under my signature and seal of the court.

Seal.

LAYAK RAM NEGI,

Sub-Divisional Magistrate Shimla(R),

District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

____________

In the Court of Shri Layak Ram Negi, Sub-Divisional Magistrate Shimla(R), District Shimla,

Himachal Pradesh

Smt. Satya Devi w/o Ram Dass Shandil, r/o Village Biachari, Tehsil and Distt. Shimla

(H. P.)

..Applicant.

Versus

General Public

..Respondent.

Whereas Smt. Satya Devi w/o Late Ram Dass Shandil, r/o Village Biachari, Tehsil and

Distt. Shimla has filed an application along with an affidavit in the court of undersigned under

section 13 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1969 to enter her name Satya Devi instead of

Bantu Devi in the Parivar Register in Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchatyat Byachri has stated no

objection to register the name of the applicant vide resolution No. 3 dated 11-3-2011 .

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 15 ekpZ] 2011@24 QkYxqu] 1932

9607

Sl.

No.

Name of the family members

Relation

Date of death

Satya Devi Alias Suraj Bantu Devi

w/o Late Shri Ram Dass, r/o

Byachri G. P. Byachri.

9-4-1932

Hence, this proclamation is issued to the general public if they have any objection/claim

regarding registration of names of the applicant may file their claim/objection on or before one

month of publication of this notice in Government Gazette in this court, failing which necessary

orders will be passed.

Given today 10th march, 2011 under my signature and seal of the court.

Seal.

LAYAK RAM NEGI,

Sub-Divisional Magistrate Shimla(R),

District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

————

In the Court of Shri Layak Ram Negi, Sub-Divisional Magistrate Shimla(R), District Shimla,

Himachal Pradesh

Shri Roshan Lal s/o Shri Ram Dass, r/o Village Kheel, P. O. Devnagar, Tehsil and Distt.

Shimla (H. P.)

..Applicant.

Versus

General Public

..Respondent.

Whereas Shri Roshan Lal s/o Late Shri Ram Dass, r/o Village Kheel, P. O. Devnagar,

Tehsil and Distt. Shimla has filed an application along with an affidavit in the court of undersigned

under section 13 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1969 to enter the following name of his

family member. The Gram Panchayat Dudalati has stated no objection to register the name of the

applicant vide resolution No. 2 dated 11-3-2011 .

Sl.

No.

Name of the family members

Relation

Date of death

Sanharu Devi

w/o Late Shri Daulat Ram,

r/o Village Bharoi, P. O.

Rori, Shimla

20-6-1981

Hence, this proclamation is issued to the general public if they have any objection/claim

regarding registration of names of the applicant may file their claim/objection on or before one

month of publication of this notice in Government Gazette in this court, failing which necessary

orders will be passed.

Given today 10th march, 2011 under my signature and seal of the court.

Seal.

LAYAK RAM NEGI,

Sub-Divisional Magistrate Shimla(R),

District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

9608

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 15 ekpZ] 2011@24 QkYxqu] 1932

In the Court of Shri Layak Ram Negi, Sub-Divisional Magistrate Shimla(R), District Shimla,

Himachal Pradesh

Shri Puran Chand s/o Assa Ram, r/o Village Duh, P. O. Salana, Tehsil and Distt. Shimla (H. P.)

..Applicant.

Versus

General Public

..Respondent.

Whereas Shri Puran Chand, r/o Village Duh, P. O. Salana, Tehsil and Distt. Shimla has filed

an application along with an affidavit in the court of undersigned under section 13 of the Births and

Deaths Registration Act, 1969 to enter the following names of his family members. The Gram

Panchayat Rampur Kyonthal has stated no objection to register the names of the applicant vide

resolution No. 1 dated 11-3-2011.

Sl.

No.

Name of the family members

Relation

Date of death

Shakuntala Sharma

wife

8-2-1964

Rajinder Sharma

Son

21-3-1986

Lalita Sharma

Daughter

1-2-1988

Gayatri

Son

6-2-1989

Ajay Sharma

Son

28-11-1990

Hence, this proclamation is issued to the general public if they have any objection/claim

regarding registration of names of the applicant may file their claim/objection on or before one

month of publication of this notice in Government Gazette in this court, failing which necessary

orders will be passed.

Given today 10th march, 2011 under my signature and seal of the court.

Seal.

LAYAK RAM NEGI,

Sub-Divisional Magistrate Shimla(R),

District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

————

c vnkyr Jh ch0 ,l0 xxZ] dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] ukgu] ftyk fljekSj] fgekpy izns'k

Jh jghewnhu iq= Jh lqjrw] fuoklh HksM+ks] rglhy ukgu] ftyk fljekSj] fgekpy izns'kA

cuke

vke turk

mijksDr izkFkZuk&i= Jh jghewnhu iq= Jh lqjrw] fuoklh HksM+ks] rglhy ukgu] ftyk fljekSj]

fgekpy izns'k us v/khu /kkjk 13 ¼3½ tUe ,oa e`R;q iathdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1969 ds vUrxZr izLrqr djds

izkFkZuk dh gS fd muds iq= ulhe dh tUe frfFk 27&5&1996 gS] dk uke xzke iapk;r Hkkrj ds fjdkMZ esa

ntZ ugha djok;k x;k gSA ftls izkFkhZ vc ntZ djokuk pkgrk gSA

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 15 ekpZ] 2011@24 QkYxqu] 1932

9609

vr% loZlk/kkj.k dks bl b'rgkj }kjk lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd bl lEcU/k esa ;fn fdlh O;fDr

dks mtj ;k ,rjkt gks rks og Lo;a vFkok vius izfrfuf/k }kjk fefr 20&4&2011 dks lqcg nl cts bl

vnkyr esa mifLFkr vkdj izLrqr djs clwjr nhxj ulhe dk uke ,oa tUe frfFk dks ntZ djus ds vkns'k

tkjh dj fn, tkoasxsA

vkt fnukad 3&3&2011 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr ls tkjh gqvkA

eksgjA ch0 ,l0 xxZ]

dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh]

ukgu] ftyk fljekSj] fgekpy izns'kA

&&&&&&&&

c vnkyr Jh ch0 ,l0 xxZ] dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] ukgu] ftyk fljekSj] fgekpy izns'k

Jh jghewnhu iq= Jh lqjrw] fuoklh HksM+ks] rglhy ukgu] ftyk fljekSj] fgekpy izns'kA

cuke

vke turk

mijksDr izkFkZuk&i= Jh jghewnhu iq= Jh lqjrw] fuoklh HksM+ks] rglhy ukgu] ftyk fljekSj]

fgekpy izns'k us v/khu /kkjk 13 ¼3½ tUe ,oa e`R;q iathdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1969 ds vUrxZr izLrqr djds

izkFkZuk dh gS fd mudh iq=h xqyflrk dh tUe frfFk 12&5&1990 gS] dk uke xzke iapk;r HkkÙkj ds

fjdkMZ esa ntZ ugha djok;k x;k gSA ftls izkFkhZ vc ntZ djokuk pkgrk gSA

vr% loZlk/kkj.k dks bl b'rgkj }kjk lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd bl lEcU/k esa ;fn fdlh O;fDr

dks mtj ;k ,rjkt gks rks og Lo;a vFkok vius izfrfuf/k }kjk fefr 20&4&2011 dks lqcg nl cts bl

vnkyr esa mifLFkr vkdj izLrqr djs clwjr nhxj xqyflrk dk uke ,oa tUe frfFk dks ntZ djus ds

vkns'k tkjh dj fn, tkoasxsA

vkt fnukad 3&3&2011 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr ls tkjh gqvkA

eksgjA ch0 ,l0 xxZ]

dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh]

ukgu] ftyk fljekSj] fgekpy izns'kA

&&&&&&&&

c vnkyr Jh chfjUnz 'kekZ] rglhynkj ,oa dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] Åuk] rglhy o ftyk Åuk]

fgekpy izns'k

Jh dq'kyk iz'kkn cuke

vke turk

nj[okLr tsj /kkjk 13 ¼3½ tUe ,oa e`R;q jftLVªhdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1969-

uksfVl cuke vke turkA

Jh dq'kyk iz'kkn iq= Jh n'kZu iz'kkn] fuoklh HkM+ksfy;ka [kqnZ] rglhy Åuk] ftyk Åuk us bl

vnkyr esa nj[okLr nh gS fd mldh iq=h f'kokuh dk tUe HkM+ksfy;ka [kqnZ esa fnukad 26&10&2004 dks

9610

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 15 ekpZ] 2011@24 QkYxqu] 1932

gqvk Fkk ijUrq bl ckjs iapk;r ds fjdkMZ eas iathdj.k ugha djok;k tk ldkA vc iathdj.k djus ds

vkns'k fn, tk,aA

vr% bl uksfVl ds ek/;e ls loZlk/kkj.k dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn fdlh O;fDr dks

mijksDr tUe ds iathdj.k gksus ckjs dksbZ mtj@,rjkt gks rks og fnukad 5&4&2011 dks lqcg 10-00

cts v/kksgLrk{kjh ds le{k vlkyru@odkyru gkftj vkdj is'k dj ldrk gS vU;Fkk mijksDr tUe dk

iathdj.k djus ds vkns'k ns fn, tk,axsA

vkt fnukad 3&3&2011 dks gLrk{kj esjs o eksgj vnkyr }kjk tkjh gqvkA

eksgjA

chfjUnz 'kekZ]

rglhynkj ,oa dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh]

Åuk] rglhy o ftyk Åuk] fgekpy izns'kA

&&&&&&

c vnkyr Jh chfjUnz 'kekZ] rglhynkj ,oa dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] Åuk] rglhy o ftyk Åuk]

fgekpy izns'k

Jh lrh'k dqekj

cuke

vke turk

nj[okLr tsj /kkjk 13 ¼3½ tUe ,oa e`R;q jftLVªhdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1969-

uksfVl cuke vke turkA

Jh lrh'k dqekj iq= Jh xjhc nkl] fuoklh eykgr] rglhy Åuk] ftyk Åuk us bl vnkyr esa

nj[okLr nh gS fd mlds HkkbZ jke Lo:i dh e`R;q xkao eykgr esa fnukad 10&7&1997 dks gqbz Fkh ijUrq

bl ckjs iapk;r ds fjdkMZ eas iathdj.k ugha djok;k tk ldkA vc iathdj.k djus ds vkns'k fn, tk,aA

vr% bl uksfVl ds ek/;e ls loZlk/kkj.k dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn fdlh O;fDr dks

mijksDr tUe ds iathdj.k gksus ckjs dksbZ mtj@,rjkt gks rks og fnukad 5&4&2011 dks lqcg 10-00

cts v/kksgLrk{kjh ds le{k vlkyru@odkyru gkftj vkdj is'k dj ldrk gS vU;Fkk mijksDr e`R;q dk

iathdj.k djus ds vkns'k ns fn, tk,axsA

vkt fnukad 3&3&2011 dks gLrk{kj esjs o eksgj vnkyr }kjk tkjh gqvkA

eksgjA

chfjUnz 'kekZ]

rglhynkj ,oa dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh]

Åuk] rglhy o ftyk Åuk] fgekpy izns'kA

&&&&&&

LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT

AWARDS

IN THE COURT OF KR. CHIRAG BHANU SINGH PRESIDING JUDGE, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

Ref No. : 65/2007

Date of Institution : 2.6.2007

Date of decision : 29.11.2010

Shri Abhay Ram S/o Shri Ishwaroo Ram, R/o Village Bhosh, P.O. Haripur, District Kullu, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 15 ekpZ] 2011@24 QkYxqu] 1932

9611

The Managing Director, M/s. Lahoul Potato Growers Co-operative Marketting-cum-Processing Society

Ltd. Manali, District Kullu, H.P.

The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Government of H.P. Shimla, H.P.

. .Respondents.

Reference under section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. K.S. Guleria, Adv.

For the Respondents : Sh. R.L. Kaith, Adv.

AWARD

The following reference has been received from the appropriate Government for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the (1) Managing Director, M/s. Lahoul Potato Growers Co-operative

Marketting-cum-Processing Society Ltd. Manali, District Kullu, H.P. (2) The Registrar, Co-

operative Societies, Government of H.P. Shimla-9 to give break in service to Shri Abhay Ram S/o

Shri Ishwaroo Ram workman during his service period time and again and finally terminated

w.e.f.22.4.1999 without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as alleged

by the workman is proper and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits and amount of

compensation the above aggrieved workman is entitled to?”

In furtherance to the reference, the case set out by the petitioner in brief is that he was engaged as a

daily waged workman on muster roll basis on 1.8.1995.

The employer society was indulging in unfair labour practices and as a sequel thereto the daily wagers

had formed a Union known by the name of L.P.S. Mazdoor Sangh. They had issued a demand notice on 2.6.1999,

followed by a reminder on 13.7.1999. During the pendency of the said demand the services of the petitioner and other

workmen, who were the members of the Union was illegally retrenched, though there was sufficient work available

with the respondent.

The services of the petitioner was terminated on 22.4.1999 without any notice and compensation,

oblivious of the fact that the petitioner had completed more than 240 days in each calendar year.

It is also averred by the petitioner that the employer had been giving fictional and illegal breaks to the

petitioner without any fault on his part. The respondents even retained persons junior to the petitioner namely Santosh

Kumari, Maheshwar Singh, Vikash, Balbir, Ravinder Singh etc. The respondents had also engaged new hands but the

petitioner was never offered any opportunity of reengagement.

The petitioner thus seeks that his oral termination on 22.4.1999 be set aside and quashed. He may be

directed to be reengaged along with back wages and all other consequential benefits.

While contesting the claim the respondent No.2 has not filed any reply and nor contested the claim. The

respondent society has however raised the preliminary objections that the society having being registered under the

H.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 the claim was without jurisdiction and that the petitioner having been appointed

for a specified period the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the

Act) were not attracted in the present case.

On merits it is the case of the respondent society that the work with the society is of a seasonal nature.

In order to meet the requirements of the society the workmen are engaged on seasonal basis or a specified period.

These workmen are disengaged in accordance with law on the culmination of the potato season. It is further averred by

the respondent that the services of the petitioner were not dispensed with a malafide intention or vindictive attitude. It

was after the culmination of the potato season that the petitioner was eased out with an assurance that he would be

reengaged during the next season. The petitioner was recalled in the next season but he did not join. The workmen were

stated to have not been retrenched within the meaning of Section 2(oo).

The respondent further averred that the petitioner was always appointed for a specified period and not

on regular basis. On culmination of the specified period the services of the petitioner stood automatically terminated

and as such the compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act does not arise. The

petitioner was engaged intermittently on seasonal basis or specified period of work. It is denied that the petitioner had

completed 240 days during the preceding 12 months of his disengagement.

9612

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 15 ekpZ] 2011@24 QkYxqu] 1932

10.

As per the respondents the petitioner had been offered due opportunity on opening of the potato season

in the year 2000, for a period of 89 days, but, he did not report for duty. Consequently certain workmen namely

Santosh Kumari, Maheshwar Singh, Vikash and Balbir had to be reengaged for 89 days. It is thus averred that the

petitioner is not entitled to any relief claimed by him.

11.

While filing the rejoinder the petitioner controverted the averments in the reply and further reiterated

those in the statement of claim.

12.

I notice that on 6.1.2009 the following issues came to be framed by my ld. Predecessor.

Whether the termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent 1 is unlawful. If so, what

relief of service benefits the petitioner is entitled to? OPP

Whether the respondent 1 had been giving fictional breaks in the services of the petitioner

without any fault on his (petitioner) part. OPP

Whether the work of M/s. Lahaul Potato Grower’s Cooperative Marketting-cum-Processing

Society Ltd. Manali, Distt. Kullu, H.P. is of seasonal nature and the petitioner was engaged

intermittently on the seasonal basis for a specific period. If so, to what effect. OPR

Whether the petitioner’s removal from service does not fall within mischief of section 2(oo) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. OPR

Relief.

13.

Having considered the pleadings, evidence and other attendant materials placed on record; my findings

on the issues framed above are thus:

Issue No. 1 :

Yes

Issue No. 2 :

Yes

Issue No. 3 :

Issue No. 4 :

Relief :

Allowed as per operative part part of the award.

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

ISSUES No. 2, 3 AND 4.

14.

All the three issues being intermingled and co-related are taken up together for discussion.

15.

Before considering the question of termination it would be apposite to first and foremost consider the

question of the nature of the engagement i.e. whether the engagement was seasonal or intermittent in nature the breaks

given thereupon were fictional or not.

16.

The case set up by the petitioner simplicitor is that he was appointed for 89 days and thereupon given

fictional breaks. He was however again reemployed for 89 days and the process continued as such w.e.f. 1.8.1995 till

22.4.1999 when his services were eventually disengaged.

17. On the contrary the respondent has portrayed that the work available with them is seasonal in nature. The

workmen are engaged by the society on seasonal basis for a specified period i.e. during the potato season and thereafter

the workmen are disengaged. The petitioner as such had been engaged intermittently on seasonal basis for specified

period of 89 days in accordance with the exigency of work.

18.

In order to substantiate the plea so raised by the petitioner he has appeared as his own witness, PW1.

The petitioner has reiterated the stand taken by him in the statement of claim. He has also further placed on record the

transfer letters issued to him on 28.6.1996 as Ex. PA-2 and his mandays for the last 12 months, preceding his

termination vide Ex. PA-1, whereby the petitioner has put in 320 days.

19.

On the other hand the respondents have examined the Managing Director Sh. Nawang Bodh as RW1 in

order to substantiate their contention. The Managing Director of the society who has appeared as RW1 has deposed that

during the potato season the society engages need based workmen for a specified period on daily wages every year.

Likewise the petitioner had been engaged by the society and his services had come to an end on completion of the

specified period of his employment. He was appointed on daily wages without asking for a requisition from the

employment exchange. Since the petitioner had not completed 240 days during the preceding 12 months of his

termination no notice was required to be served on him. Even assuming the petitioner had completed 240 days even

then, he cannot claim reinstatement since the petitioner had been appointed dehors appointment rules i.e. without

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 15 ekpZ] 2011@24 QkYxqu] 1932

9613

notifying the vacancy through the employment exchange. The respondent witness has also placed on record one office

order dated 24.1.2007 and a resolution of the society dated 17.1.2007 whereby the allowances of the employees of the

society have been ordered to be frozen.

20.

Though the respondents have taken a categorically stand that the petitioner was appointed for seasonal

work and that too during the potato season and that after the specified period the services of the petitioner had

automatically come to an end. But it is also not denied by the respondent that the petitioner used to offer appointment

for 89 days by issuing office orders. The petitioner has placed on record Ex. PA-1 whereby he has been shown to have

put in more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months of his termination. A bare glance at the documents on record

show that the petitioner had been offered appointment uninterruptedly, till his termination on 22.4.1999. The letters on

record show that except for giving a break of a day or so the petitioner was invariably offered appointment for 89 days

continuously. As per the appointment letters on record invariably after about 89 days the petitioner was offered

appointment continuously from 1.1.1995 till 22.4.1999. In the last 12 months prior to his termination the petitioner has

worked for 320 days, as is clear from Ex. PA-1. The plea and testimony of the respondents that the petitioner had been

engaged only for work in the potato season is thus falsified and belied by their own documents issued to the petitioner.

Nothing to the contrary has been proved on record by the respondent. Rather, tacitly the respondent had admitted that

the petitioner was appointed for 89 days by way of the appointment letters on record.

21.

Not only this the documentary evidence on record as discussed above clearly shows that the petitioner

had completed more than 270 days in the 12 months preceding his termination. Thus, even otherwise it cannot be

inferred that a person having worked for more than 270 days was a seasonal worker. It is thus clear that even the

intention of the respondents themselves was not such as to engage the petitioner for a specified period, as alleged.

Apparently it seems to be a ploy to defeat the rights of a workman as envisaged under the provisions of Industrial

Disputes Act, more particularly the provisions of Section 25-F thereto. The aforesaid practice of the respondents to

employ the petitioner uninterruptedly, but for 89 days each clearly falls within the ambit and scope of unfair labour

practice and as such it cannot even be said that the petitioner’s removal from service is protected under Section 2(oo) of

the Industrial Disputes Act. In this behalf support can ably be drawn from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

titled Haryana State Electronics Development Ltd. vs. Mamni (AIR 2006 SC 2427).

22.

Strangely the respondent society has raised a plea that since the engagement of the petitioner is dehors

the appointment rules the subsequent disengagement was legal. Even if he has completed 240 days in the preceding 12

months it cannot claim reinstatement. The aforesaid plea in fact has not been raised in the reply filed by the society. It

has been raised by the Managing Director who has appeared a RW1 while appearing as his own witness. However

nothing has been produced on record to show as to what were and are the appointment rules governing the society. It is

thus sought to be portrayed that since the petitioner was not engaged through employment exchange their initial

engagement is bad in the eyes of law.

23.

Though this ground was never taken by the respondents in their pleadings and as such the petitioner

could not have been taken unaware that is without affording opportunity to the petitioner to explain the circumstances.

But the fact remains that the respondents have even miserably failed to place on record the rules governing

appointments in the society and as such the bald statement of RW1 cannot be believed that the appointment itself was

dehors the rules. Even otherwise the appointment of the petitioner was on daily wage basis. It has been made after the

concurrence of the board of directors. The initial engagement, thus, also cannot be said to be in violation of any rule as

none but the board of directors had agreed to the appointment of the petitioner.

24.

The ld. counsel for the respondents to buttress his contention that because of the illegal appointment of

the petitioner the protection of the provisions of Section 25-F cannot be granted to the petitioner has placed reliance on

a judgments of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court titled as Chief Engineer, RSD, Irrigation Works and Anr.

vs. Suresh Kumar (2009 (1) SCT 163) and Divisional Forest Officer vs. Mangat Ram & Anr. (2009 (1) SCT 62), a

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. vs. Dan Bahadur Singh and Ors. (2007) 2

SCC (L&S) 441 and Accounts Officer (A&I) APSRTC and Ors. vs. K.V. Ramana & Ors. ( 2007 (3) SLR 440). Since

the respondents have failed to prove that the appointment of the petitioner was against the recruitment rules of the

respondents society the ratio laid by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Suresh Kumar and Mangat Ram’s

case discussed hereinabove supra do not come to the rescue of the respondent.

25.

The ratio of the K.V. Ramana and Dan Bahadur Singh’s case also does not apply to the facts and

circumstances of the present case as admittedly by now it is well settled that long working period cannot be regularized

dehors the rules. The present case does not pertain to regularization, and in any case regularization if any has to be

subject to the availability of post and policy thereupon in respect of regularization. Per se the petitioner cannot claim

for regularization even after having put in long and uninterrupted service with the respondents. Nonetheless the

aforesaid ratio does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. For all the reasons discussed above it

is to be held that the petitioner was not appointed for seasonal work and that too intermittently. The respondent in fact

9614

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 15 ekpZ] 2011@24 QkYxqu] 1932

had been giving fictional breaks to the petitioner after every 89 days to frustrate the provisions of Section 25-F of the

Act, though they continued employing the petitioner uninterruptedly from 1.8.1995 till 22.4.1999. In view of the matter

it cannot further also said that the termination of the petitioner was protected by the provisions of Section 2(oo) of the

Industrial Disputes Act. All the three issues are decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

ISSUE No. 1

26.

Now reverting back to the core issue as to whether the termination of the petitioner by the respondent

no.1 was unlawful or not, suffice it to say that for the reasons recorded in relation to the issues no. 2,3 and 4, discussed

hereinabove supra it is clear that the petitioner has completed more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months of his

termination. The discussion held hereinabove points to only this conclusion. The documentary evidence on record more

particularly Ex. PA-1 further falsifies the claim of the respondent and provides support to the case set up by the

petitioner.

27.

The case set up by the petitioner is further fortified by Ex. PA-3 to Ex.PA-6 whereby the petitioner and

the other workmen had raised a demand charter before the respondents and which apparently led to the termination of

the petitioner. The said fact is very candidly and categorically admitted by the Managing Director of the respondent

society while appearing as RW1. In his cross-examination he has admitted that the petitioner and other workmen had

formed a workers union and offended by the same their services have been dispensed with by the society. Even if that

were so the respondent society was under a legal obligation to have atleast resorted to the provisions of Section 25-F of

the Industrial Disputes Act and thereupon disengage the services of the petitioner. No such steps were taken by the

respondent society. The petitioner having worked uninterruptedly from 1.8.1995 till 22.4.1999 and having completed

more than 240 days immediately preceding 12 months of his termination was entitled to the protection of the Act. Not

only this, the respondent has even otherwise flagrantly violating the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act by

offering appointment to the petitioner for 89 days and thereupon giving him fictional breaks to merely deprive him of

his legal rights envisaged under the Industrial Disputes Act. It was nothing but an act of unfair labour practice.

Apparently and as has been categorically admitted by the Managing Director the petitioner and the other workmen had

been shown the door for having raised an union and a demand under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The

termination of the petitioner thus cannot be sustained in any manner. Consequently the termination of the petitioner is

held to be illegal. It is set aside and quashed. The respondent is directed to reengage the petitioner at the same place and

post forthwith. The petitioner shall be entitled to continuity and seniority in service from the date of his illegal

termination.

28.

Though the petitioner has discharged his initial onus of proving that he was not gainfully employed

during the period of his forced idleness but seeing to the financial health of the society, as is reflected per Ex. RW1/B

and Ex. RW1/C it seems to be dismal. I do not think it just and proper to award back wages to the petitioner.

Nonetheless seeing to the fact that the respondents had flagrantly violated the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act

and had been rather trying to defeat the provisions of the Act as has been discussed hereinabove it is ordered that the

respondent shall pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner as lump sum compensation in lieu of the back wages.

The issue decided accordingly.

RELIEF

29.

For all the foregoing reasons discussed the reference is allowed. The termination of the petitioner is set

aside and quashed. The respondents are directed to reengage the petitioner forthwith. He is entitled to continuity and

seniority in service from the date of his illegal termination. The petitioner is also entitled to Rs.25,000/- as lump sum

compensation in lieu of back wages. The reference is answered in the following terms. A copy of this award be sent to

the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette and the file after completion be consigned to the

record room.

Announced in the open Court today this 29th day of November, 2010.

KR. CHIRAG BHANU SINGH,

Presiding Judge,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Dharamshala, H.P.

_____________

IN THE COURT OF KR. CHIRAG BHANU SINGH PRESIDING JUDGE, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT, DHARAMSHALA, H.P. (CAMP AT MANDI)

Ref No. : 34/2006

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 15 ekpZ] 2011@24 QkYxqu] 1932

9615

Date of Institution : 20.3.2006

Date of decision : 12.1.2011

Shri Amru Ram S/o Shri Khima Ram, R/o VPO Kummi, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Suket at Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. . .Respondent.

Reference under section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. Bimal Sharma, Adv.

For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Katoch, Ld. Dy.D.A.

AWARD

The following reference has been received from the appropriate Government for adjudication:

“Whether the termination of services of Sh. Amru Ram S/o Shri Khima Ram workman by the

Divisional Forest Officer Suket, Forest Division, Sundernagar w.e.f.26.4.2002 without complying

the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is proper and justified? If not, what relief of

service benefits and amount of compensation the above aggrieved workman is entitled to?”

In pursuance to the reference the petitioner has averred in the statement of claim that he was engaged as

a beldar on 1.11.1997. He worked as such till 25.4.2002 and eventually his services were terminated on 26.4.2002

without any notice. The respondent did not comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

It is also averred by the petitioner that the persons junior to him have been retained by the respondent ,

which act of the respondent itself is violative of the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act. That permanent work is

available with the respondent and the services of the petitioner have been disengaged arbitrarily.

The petitioner further contends that he had been re-engaged by virtue of the interim orders passed by

the Hon’ble Administrative Tribunal and after the dismissal of his O.A. his services have been terminated in May,

2002. Thereupon he had raised the present dispute. The petitioner thus claims re-engagement with all consequential

benefits.

The respondents while contesting the claim have averred that the petitioner was engaged as a causal

labourer. The petitioner was a seasonal worker and that too keeping in view the availability of funds. The petitioner

continued working intermittently till April, 2002. The respondents have annexed the mandays chart of the petitioner

with the reply. It is further averred by the respondents that a notice was issued to the petitioner but the same was

retuned back by the postal authorities with the remarks that the addressee was not available at home. Per the

respondents the petitioner had not completed 240 days in each calendar year except the year 2001. It is denied that the

respondent had engaged persons junior to the petitioner. It is further averred that the petitioner had left job on his own

whereas the other persons had been continued working subject to availability of work and funds. The respondents thus

pray for the dismissal of the claim.

While filing the rejoinder the petitioner controverted the averments in the reply and further reiterated

those in the statement of claim.

I notice that on 29.2.2008 the following issues came to be framed by my ld. predecessor:

Whether the disengagement from the service of the claimant by the respondent is proper and

justified?

OPP

If the above issue is proved in affirmative to what relief of service benefit the claimant is

entitled to the respondent? OPP

Relief.

Having considered the pleadings, evidence and other attendant materials placed on record; my findings

on the issues framed above are thus:

9616

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 15 ekpZ] 2011@24 QkYxqu] 1932

Issue No. 1 : No

Issue No. 2 : As per operative part of the award

Relief. :

Allowed as per operative part of the award.

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

ISSUES No. 1 AND 2

Both the issues are being taken up together for discussion as they are co-related and intermingled.

10.

The case set up by the respondents is that the petitioner was a seasonal worker and had rather left the

job of his own. It is further their case that the petitioner had been not completed 240 days except the year 2001.

11.

The respondents have placed on record the mandays chart of the petitioner vide Ex. RW1/A. A bare

glance at the mandays show that the petitioner had completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months of his termination.

The plea of a seasonal worker thus is exfacie falsified by the mandays of the respondents themselves. The petitioner

thus was indeed entitled to a notice as envisaged under Section 25-F of the Act. The respondents have placed on record

a notice purportedly having been sent to the petitioner regarding his disengagement vide Ex. RW1/B. The said notice

infact was issued somewhere on 20.12.2000. Admittedly the services of the petitioner were disengaged in April, 2002.

The notice Ex. RW1/B is thus of no consequence.

12.

The respondents have further canvassed that the petitioner had left the job of his own sweet will. By

now it is well settled that the question of abandonment has to be proved on record, seeing to the facts and

circumstances of each individual case. It is a question of fact which has to be determined in the light of surrounding

circumstances of each case, as has been held by our own Hon’ble High Court in a case titled State of H.P. vs. Bhatag

Ram and Anr. (2007 LHLJ 903). Nothing has been placed on record to prove the plea so raised by the respondent.

13.

The respondents have failed to place on record any evidence to remotely show that the petitioner had

actually abandoned job. Tacitly the respondents have admitted that the juniors are still continuing with them, for it is

averred by the respondents that that the petitioner had left the job of his own whereas other workmen continued as per

availability of work and funds. The plea of work being seasonal in nature having already been negated by their own

documents placed on record and there being no evidence that the petitioner had abandoned job it is more than certain

that the services of the petitioner were disengaged by the respondents. There is no evidence on record that the

respondents had taken recourse to the statutory provisions of the Section 25-F and as such the termination of the

petitioner is illegal and arbitrary. Not only this, the respondents have also failed to abide by the provisions of Section

25-G of the Act. The disengagement of the petitioner is thus held to be illegal. It is neither proper nor justified.

14.

Consequently while allowing the reference the respondents are directed to re-engage the petitioner

forthwith. Seeing to the peculiar circumstances of the case and more particularly keeping in view the fact that the

petitioner had been re-engaged in pursuance to the interim orders passed by the Ld. Administrative Tribunal and he

continued working as such for some time I do not deem it just and proper to award back wages to the petitioner. The

petitioner shall however be entitled to seniority and continuity in service from the date of his illegal termination. Both

the issues are accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner.

RELIEF

15.

For the foregoing reasons discussed hereinabove, the reference is allowed. The respondents are directed

to re-engage the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner shall be entitled to continuity in service and seniority from the date

of his illegal termination, though except back wages. The reference is answered accordingly. A copy of this award be

sent to the appropriate Govt. for publication in the official gazette and the file after completion consigned to the record

room.

Announced in the open Court today the 12th day of January, 2011.

KR. CHIRAG BHANU SINGH,

Presiding Judge,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Dharamshala, H.P.

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 15 ekpZ] 2011@24 QkYxqu] 1932

9617

IN THE COURT OF KR. CHIRAG BHANU SINGH, PRESIDING JUDGE, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

Ref No. : 450/2009

Date of Institution : 28.8.2009

Date of decision : 26.11.2010

Shri Balam Ram S/o Shri Sunder Singh, R/o Village Hawani, P.O. Ropadi, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi,

H.P.

. .Petitioner.

Versus

The Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Division Dharampur, Tehsil Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi, H.P. . .Respondent.

Reference under section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. N.L. Kaundal, AR

Sh. Vijay Kaundal, Adv.

For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Katoch, Ld. Dy.D.A.

AWARD

The following reference was received for adjudication from the appropriate Government:

“Whether retrenchment of services of Shri Balam Ram S/o Shri Sunder Singh by the Executive

Engineer, HPPWD Division Dharampur, Tehsil Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi, w.e.f. 08.7.2005 without

following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what

amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above Ex-Worker is

entitled to from the above Employer?”

The case of the petitioner, as it emerges from the statement of claim is that he was appointed as a daily

waged beldar by the respondent on November, 1998 in Dharampur Division of HPPWD. He continued to work as such

till 7.7.2005 and his services were dispensed with illegally w.e.f. 8.7.2005.

It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent had maintained no seniority and person juniors

to the petitioner have been allowed to continue as beldars. The respondent had violated the principle of “First come,

last go”. The action of the respondent is violative of the provisions of Sections 25-N, 25-G and 25-H. The petitioner

alleged that about 35 persons junior to him namely Subhash Chand, Shashi Kant, Bidhi Chand, Ranjeet Singh, Balak

Ram, Dalip Singh, Dharampal etc. who were appointed in November, 1998 and even later thereto i.e. 1.1.2000 (Shashi

Kant) 1.12.2003 (Ajay Kumar) and Roshani Devi appointed on 4.7.1999 have still being retained by the respondent.

The petitioner has further impugned the notification issued by the Government of H.P. dated 14.2.2005

whereby the State of H.P. had conferred powers of the “specified authority” as envisaged under the provisions of

Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the Chief Engineer, Central

Zone Mandi. The petitioner further averred that since the Chief Engineer was directly related with the employment of

the petitioner and as such the action of the State of H.P. in appointing as specified authority under the Act was per se

legal. The Chief Engineer was as interested party, the notices issued to the petitioner under Section 25-N of the Act

were thus illegal. The workmen had filed a Civil Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. vide CWP

No.486/05 and during the pendency of the same the State rescinded the notification dated 14.2.2005 and the said

powers was thereupon conferred upon the Labour Commissioner. Per the petitioner the aforesaid notification dated

14.2.2005 had been issued merely to retrench the petitioner and other workmen in Dharampur division.

It is further averred by the petitioner that he has completed 240 days during the preceding 12 calendar

months prior to his termination.

The petitioner thus seeks that the notification dated 14.2.2005 under Section 25-N be declared null and

void and the petitioner be ordered to be reinstated with full back-wages, seniority and other consequential benefits. The

respondent with the malafide intentions in an illegal and arbitrary manner ordered the retrenchment of about 1636 daily

waged workmen after exercising power wrongfully under Section 25-N of the Act.

The respondent while contesting the claim of the petitioner has inter-alia raised the preliminary

objections of the reference being not maintainable, it being hit by delay and laches, suppressio veri and the petitioner

being estopped by his act and conduct from filing the claim.

9618

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 15 ekpZ] 2011@24 QkYxqu] 1932

On merits without primarily disputing the factual narration it is the case of the respondent that the

services of the petitioner has been dispensed with as per the provisions of the Act after the specified authoritycum-

Chief Engineer (CZ) Mandi had given permission for retrenchment of 1087 workmen out of the total of 1636, after

following the provisions of Section 25-N of the Act. The petitioner and other workmen were stated to have been

retrenched after having been given three months basic pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation as provided

under the Act.

It is also averred by the respondent that the retrenchment was necessitated because of surplus-age of

labour and paucity of funds with the department. Further per the respondent a large number of labourers have been

indiscriminately engaged on bifurcation of the Dharampur division out of Sarkaghat division w.e.f. 7th November,

1998 till 6/1999 whereby 3734 additional people were employed in the division taking the total strength of labour to

4045. The department was thus being constrained to maintain the labour strength out of the non-plan expenditure. Thus,

to avoid financial hardship to the department action had been initiated under Section 25-N by the respondent. The

retrenchment of the petitioner and other workmen was thus stated to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

10.

While filing rejoinder the petitioner controverted the averments in the reply and reiterated those taken

in the statement of claim.

11.

Based on the pleadings the following points came to be framed for determination:-

Whether the retrenchment of the petitioner under Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 is illegal and unjustified, as alleged. If so to what effect?

OPP

Whether the termination of the petitioner is also violative of the provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G

and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as alleged. If so, to what effect?

OPP

Whether the petition suffers from the vice of delay and laches, as alleged. If so to what effect?

OPR.

Whether the reference is not maintainable, as alleged. If so, to what effect?

OPR

Relief.

12.

On the basis of the close analytical analysis of the pleadings, evidence and other attendant material

placed on record, my findings on these issues are as under:-

Issue 1 :

Yes. The petitioner is entitled to reinstatement, along with Rs.50,000/- as a lump sum amount in

lieu of backwages, litigation expenses and compensation with continuity of service from the date

of termination.

Issue 2 :

Yes

Issue 3 :

Issue 4 :

Relief. :

The petition allowed partly per operative part of the award.

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

ISSUES NO. 1 AND 2

13.

Both the issues are taken up together for discussion as they are co-related and intermingled.

14.

It is not disputed by the respondent that the petitioner was not employed as a beldar. The factual

narration therefore does not require much deliberations. The case of the respondent simpliciter is that due to surplus

manpower the respondent resorted to the special provisions as enunciated in Chapter VB of the Act for retrenchment of

the petitioner and other workmen serving in Dharampur Division of HPPWD, Mandi. This is the pith and substance of

the respondent’s case. In this behalf the State appointed the Chief Engineer, Central Zone, Mandi to be the “specified

authority”, who allowed the respondent to retrench the petitioner and roughly a thousand other workmen.

15.

It would be apposite to highlight the provisions of Section 25-N, under which the petitioner has been

retrenched. It appears in Chapter VB of the Act which relates to special provisions relating to lay-off, retrenchment and

closure in certain establishments. This section refers to a workman employed in any industrial establishment to which

applies Chapter VB of the Act. The applicability of this Chapter is governed by Section 25K which provides that the

Chapter shall apply to an industrial establishment (not being an establishment of a seasonal character or in which work

is performed only intermittently) in which not less than one hundred workmen were employed on an average per

working day for the preceding twelve months. The expression “industrial establishment” is for the purposes of Chapter

VB defined by clause (a) of Section 25L, which reads:

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 15 ekpZ] 2011@24 QkYxqu] 1932

9619

“25L (a) “industrial establishment” means-

(i) a factory as defined in clause (m) of section 2 of the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948);

(ii) a mine as defined in clause (j) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Mines Act, 1952 (35 of 1952);

(iii) a plantation as defined in clause (f) of section 2 of the Plantations Labour Act, 1951 (69 of 1951);”

16.

The question that arises for determination is: Whether or not Dharampur Division of Public Works

Department is an ‘industrial establishment” within the meaning of clause (a) of Section 25L of the Act. The answer, to

my thinking, is in the negative. The expression “factory” occurring in clause (a) of Section 25L is defined in Clause

2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948 thus:

“(m) “factory” means any premises including the precincts thereof-

(i) whereon ten or more workers are working, or were working on any day of the preceding twelve

months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power, or

is ordinarily so carried on, or

(ii) whereon twenty or more workers are working, or were working on any day of the preceding twelve

months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on without the aid of power,

or is ordinarily so carried on,- but does not include a mine subject to the operation of the Mines Act,

1952 (35 of 1952), or a mobile unit belonging to the armed forces of the Union, railway running shed or

a hotel, restaurant or eating place.”

17.

The parties’ pleadings are non-existent in such averments as may show Dharampur Division of

HP.PWD wherein the petitioner was engaged to be a “factory” as defined above. Also, there is nothing to suggest that

in the said Division some manufacturing process is/was being carried on with the aid of power, or is ordinarily so

carried on. Also, there is nothing to show that in any part of the said Division some manufacturing process is/was being

carried on without the aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried on. Dharampur Division of HP.PWD, particularly such

area thereof where the petitioner was engaged also cannot be said to be an “industrial establishment” within the

meaning of section 25L (a) of the Act. Section 25N of the Act under which the petitioner’s services were dispensed

with, in its material part reads:

“25N. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.

(1) No workman employed in any industrial establishment to which this Chapter applies, who has been

in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer

until,-

(a) the workman has been given three months’ notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment

and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the

period of the notice; and

(b) the prior permission of the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by that

Government by notification in the Official Gazette (hereafter in this section referred to as the specified

authority) has been obtained on an application made in this behalf”

(2) An application for permission under sub-section (1) shall be made by the employer in the prescribed

manner stating clearly the reasons for the intended retrenchment and a copy of such application shall

also be served simultaneously on the workmen concerned in the prescribed manner.

(3) Where an application for permission under sub-section (1) has been made, the appropriate

Government or the specified authority, after making such enquiry as it thinks fit and after giving a

reasonable opportunity of being heard to the employer, the workmen concerned and the person

interested in such retrenchment, may, having regard to the genuineness and adequacy of the reasons

stated by the employer, the interests of the workmen and all other relevant factors, by order and for

reasons to be recorded in writing, grant or refuse to grant such permission and a copy of such order

shall be communicated to the employer and the workmen.

(4) Where no application for permission under sub-section (1) is made, or where the permission for any

retrenchment has been refused, such retrenchment shall be deemed to be illegal from the date on which

the notice of retrenchment was given to the workman and the workman shall be entitled to all the

benefits under any law for the time being in force as if no notice had been given to him.”

18.

Once Dharampur Division of HP.PWD, particularly such location where the petitioner was said to have

been engaged, is not proved to be an “industrial establishment” within the meaning of Section 25L (a) of the Act, the

petitioner’s retrenchment under the above provisions cannot be said to be lawful.

19.

No doubt, ordinarily, it is the management which has to determine the dead weight of uneconomic

surplus-age and order retrenchment. But is has to be bonafide. The process by which the said determination is made

should look to be fair, proper and devoid of any ulterior motive. It should be free of the vice of capriciousness. The

authority having been vested in the Chief Engineer, however brings the conduct of the respondents into doubt.

9620

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 15 ekpZ] 2011@24 QkYxqu] 1932

Seemingly it makes the act of the respondent actuated with improper motive and treatment being met to the workmen

as “malafide”.

20.

Now adverting to another interesting aspect which stares one at the face and ex-facie seems to be

against the cardinal and basic principle of law. The notification under Section 25-N has authorized none else but the

Chief Engineer, HPPWD Central Zone, Mandi to be the “specified authority” from whom the respondent 3 i.e. the

Executive Engineer HPPWD, Dharampur was to take permission for the retrenchment of the petitioner and other

workmen. The Chief Engineer being head of the zone and in the present case being directly responsible for the

administration of Dharampur division has been notified to be the specified authority. In a sense he has been made a

judge in his own cause. It is not only against the principles of law but against the basic cannons of natural justice. The

action of the State appointing the Chief Engineer of the Central Zone as specified authority was thus ipso facto illegal

and as it emerges from the pleadings on the record, the State had itself withdrawn/rescinded the said notification. It is

thus to be held that it was indeed void ab initio. Any action in pursuance to the said notification was and is bad in the

eyes of law and the order dated 17.6.2005 passed by the Chief Engineer as specified authority, vide Ex.RW1/B is ex-

facie illegal.

21.

The respondent to retrench the petitioner on account of his being surplus ought to have taken recourse

to the relevant provisions contained in Chapter VA of the Act which deals with lay-off and retrenchment. One of the

sections enumerated in this chapter is 25F which lays down conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen. It says:

“25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.-

No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year

under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-

(a) the workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment

and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the

period of the notice:

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to

fifteen days’ average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess

of six months; and

be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.”

22.

In view of these provisions, no workman employed in any industry, who has been in continuous service

for not less than one year, can be retrenched by the employer unless he has been given one month’s notice in writing

indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired or the workman has been paid in lieu of

such notice, wages for the period of notice. The expression “continuous service” has been defined under Section 25B of

the Act, which in its material part reads:

“25B. Definition of continuous service.

For the purposes of this Chapter,-

(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in

uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised

leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due

to any fault on the part of the workman;

(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one

year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-

(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the

date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not

less than-

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case….”

23.

The petitioner in paragraph 3 of his statement of claim claimed to have worked for 240 days during the

period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of his retrenchment. This claim of his having not been specifically

disputed in the respondent’s reply, deserves acceptance.

24.

Not only this the perusal of the record more particularly the seniority list Ex. RW1/C categorically

shows that the respondents have engaged daily waged beldars after the petitioner was shown the door. He came to be

employed on November, 1998. Innumerable people came to be appointed as daily waged beldar thereafter. The

provisions of the Act interalia stipulate that an employer shall follow the principle of “last come first go” as per the

requirements of the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act, which reads as under:

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 15 ekpZ] 2011@24 QkYxqu] 1932

9621

“25-G. Procedure for retrenchment.-

Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he

belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement

between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the

workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the

employer retrenches any other workman”.

25.

The question of the juniors having been retained by the respondent is not only admitted by the

respondent in paragraph 4 of the reply but has also reflected as so in the seniority list of one Shashi Kant S/o Shri

Bihari Lal (Ex. PW1/B), who had been appointed as a beldar in January, 2000. The reply and the Ex. PW-1/B on record

lends assurance to the allegation of the petitioner that juniors had been retained by them, while his services have been

dispensed with.

26.

The factum of Shashi Kant being junior to the petitioner has not only been testified by the petitioner but

even the Executive Engineer, Dharampur Shri Naresh Kumar Sharma who while appearing as RW1 has sworn by the

seniority list placed on record vide Ex. RW1/C. The name of Shashi Lal S/o Shri Bihari Lal appears at serial no.646

and his date of engagement is reflected as 6.4.1999. Even if the said document is not given precedence over Ex. PW1/B

wherein the seniority of Shashi Kant has been reckoned w.e.f. January, 2000, it is clear that the said Shashi Kant had

been engaged after the petitioner. He was thus junior to the petitioner and having been retained as a beldar, the action

of the respondent was indeed violative of the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act.

27.

Though a vain attempt was made by the Ld. authorized representative for the petitioner to contend that

since the respondent had engaged beldars even after his retrenchment, the action of the respondent is also a violative of

the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act. No doubt as per seniority list for beldars as existing on 31.3.2008

(Ex.RW1/C) one Inder Singh, Mamta Devi and Ajay Kumar had been engaged on 1.1.2000, 6.4.2000 and 1.12.2003

respectively. But as is apparent from the record that all the three had been re-engaged on compassionate ground. In

these premises it may be difficult to hold that the action of the respondent was violative of the provisions of Section 25-

H of the Act. However it would be apposite to refer that in other matters relating to the retrenchment based on the

orders of the same specified authority evidence was led to prove that beldars had been engaged even in the year 2006.

Since the said evidence is not a part of the record on this file, it may not be legal to record a finding on the basis of the

same.

28.

However, the infraction of the provisions of Section 25-G is in itself fatal to the respondents. Even if

the provisions of Section 25-F are not attracted the provisions of Section 25-G is independently sufficient to protect the

rights of workmen. The non-application of 25-F shall not prejudice the right of the workmen under the provisions of

Section 25-G. In this behalf support can ably be drawn from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, titled as

Central Bank of India vs. S. Satyam and Ors. (1996) 5 SCC 419.

29.

The Hon’ble High Court of H.P. while dealing with similar matters arising out of the awards passed by

this Court in respect of the retrenchment relating to 1087 workmen of Dharampur Division in Mandi vide CWP

No.1387/2010 and other connected matters decided on 13.5.2010 has held the workmen entitled to a lump sum amount

of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of back-wages, litigation expenses and compensation. To this extent the awards passed by this

Court stand modified by the Hon’ble High Court. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and in order to avoid

discrimination among the workmen, the petitioner shall be entitled to an amount of Rs.50,000/- in lump sum in lieu of

back-wages, litigation expenses and compensation. The issue under discussion is accordingly held in his favour and

against the respondent.

ISSUE 3.

30.

The Ld. Dy.D.A. contends that there being inordinate delay in the steps taken by the petitioner for the

redressal of his grievance, his claim suffers from the vice of delay and laches, which disentitles his to the reliefs he has

prayed for. This contention, to my thinking, appears to be ill conceived. The question of delay and laches was

considered by the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Divisional Manager, Himachal Pradesh Forest

Corporation, Division Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. vs. Dilu Ram (CWP No.95/2000 decided on 26.8.2004)

wherein it was inter alia held:

“It is well settled that plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact

by showing the real prejudice and not as a mere hypertechnical defence though reference to the Labour

Court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. The provisions of Article 137 of the

Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act and that the

relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay (See Ajaib Singh v.

Sirhind Co-Op. Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. 1999(82)FLR 137 (SC).

9622

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 15 ekpZ] 2011@24 QkYxqu] 1932

31.

Upon an industrial dispute having been raised by the petitioner, the Conciliation Officer-cum-Labour

Officer, Mandi appears to have initiated conciliation proceedings. On failure of the conciliation move, the said Officer

referred the matter to the Labour Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, vide his report No.10008, dated 4.11.2007. On the

basis of this report, the Labour Commissioner referred the dispute to this Court under Section 10(1) of the Act, vide

Notification No.11-23/84(Lab)1D/2009-Mandi dated August 10, 2009. In view of the period of time that elapsed before

the matter came to be referred to this Court, the petitioner who felt aggrieved by his unlawful retrenchment on July 8,

2005, cannot be said to have delayed the steps he took for the redressal of his grievance. His claim therefore does not

suffer from the vice of delay and laches. So, the Ld. Dy.D.A.’s aforementioned contention merits rejection and is

rejected. Not only this the illegal retrenchment and the permission granted thereto by none else but their own Chief

Engineer had also come to be challenged by way of a Writ petition being CWP No.486/05 and therein to liberty had

been granted to the workmen to take suitable action as per law. The issue under discussion is accordingly held against

the respondent and in favour of the petitioner.

ISSUE 4.

32.

In view of what has been held under the foregoing issue, the petition is perfectly maintainable to the

extent the same relates to the reliefs the petitioner is found entitled to. Even otherwise nothing has been brought to my

notice, as to why the reference in not maintainable. The issue on hand is accordingly held in favour of the petitioner

and against the respondent.

RELIEF

33.

Judged in the light of my findings on the issues above, the petition succeeds and is allowed in the

following terms. The petitioner is held entitled to reinstatement with Rs.50,000/- as lump sum amount in lieu of back-

wages, litigation expenses and compensation along with continuity of service from the date of his unlawful

retrenchment (July 8, 2005). The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. The reference is answered

accordingly. A copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Govt. for publication in the official gazette and the file

after completion consigned to records.

Announced in the open Court today this 26th day of November, 2010.

KR. CHIRAG BHANU SINGH,

Presiding Judge,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Dharamshala, H.P.

_____________

IN THE COURT OF KR. CHIRAG BHANU SINGH PRESIDING JUDGE, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

Ref No. : 8/2010

Date of Institution : 16.1.2010

Date of decision : 2.11.2010

Shri Baldev Raj S/o Shri Rattan Chand, V&PO Raipur Sahora, Tehsil & Distt. Una, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

Managing Director, M/s. Mayfair Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Industrial Area Mehatpur, Distt. Una, H.P. . . Respondent.

Reference under section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. N.L. Kaundal, AR.

For the Respondent : Respondent exparte.

AWARD

The following reference has been received from the appropriate Government for adjudication:

“Whether termination of the services of Sh. Baldev Raj S/o Shri Rattan Chand by the

management of M/s Mayfair Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Industrial Area Mehatpur, Distt. Una, H.P. w.e.f.

23.2.2008 on the basis of alleged theft is legal and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits

the above workman is entitled to?”

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 15 ekpZ] 2011@24 QkYxqu] 1932

9623

The short and simple case set up by the petitioner in furtherance to the reference is that he was

appointed by the respondent management as a helper in the year 2005 and he continuously worked as such till

22.2.2008 withy any break. On 23.2.2008 his services were dispensed with verbally and without issuing any show

cause notice or charge sheet. His termination was thus violative of the principles Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is further averred by the petitioner that while dispensing his services

the management has not complied with the basic principle of ‘last come first go’, as persons junior to him namely one

Tara Chand S/o Shri Paras Ram, Amit Kumar S/o Shri Ram Kumar, Darshan Singh S/o Shri Mehar Singh and one

Satpal had still been retained by the respondent. So much so, the respondent had appointed a fresh hand namely Dhyan

Singh after the termination of the petitioner. The action of the respondents thus was also violative of the provisions of

Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act.

The respondent had lodged a false FIR against the petitioner after his termination with the sole

objective of victimizing the petitioner and that too without any specific proof regarding theft. The said act of the

respondent was also an unfair labour practice.

The petitioner thus seeks to get his termination set aside with the direction to the respondent to reinstate

him with full back wages, seniority and all other consequential benefits.

The respondent had been duly served for 1.6.2010 but none has put in appearance on his behalf. The

respondent for reasons best known to him chose not to contest the reference. The respondent was thus set-exparte.

The petitioner in order to substantiate his contentions in the statement of claim appeared as his own

witness as PW1. He reiterated the averments made in the statement of claim. The testimony of the petitioner goes to

show that he worked continuously with the respondent management from 2005 till his termination on 22.2.2008. As per

the petitioner he had worked uninterruptedly with the respondents during the said interregnum. It is also deposed by the

petitioner that the respondents have retained persons junior to him namely Tara Chand, Amit Kumar, Darshan Singh

and Satpal. Further per him one Dhyan Singh has been appointed by the respondent after his termination. The petitioner

was never offered any opportunity for reemployment. Some FIR is stated to have been filed against the petitioner after

8.3.2008 i.e. after he has raised an industrial dispute by approaching the Labour and Conciliation Officer through a

demand notice.

Nothing to the contrary has been proved and pleaded by the respondent management. It is thus to be

inferred that the respondent has violated the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act and as

such the termination of the petitioner is void and illegal in the eyes of law.

Consequently the termination of the petitioner is set aside and quashed. He is ordered to be re-engaged

forthwith at the same place and post. The petitioner has discharged his initial onus of proving that he was not a

gainfully employed during his forced idleness. The petitioner is thus held entitled to 50% back wages from the date of

his illegal termination on 23.2.2008 till his reinstatement. The petitioner shall also be entitled to continuity in service

from the date of his illegal termination. The reference is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. A copy of this award be

sent to the appropriate Govt. for publication in the official gazette and the file after completion consigned to the record

room.

Announced in the open Court today this 2nd day of November, 2010.

KR. CHIRAG BHANU SINGH,

Presiding Judge,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Dharamshala, H.P.

_____________

IN THE COURT OF KR. CHIRAG BHANU SINGH, PRESIDING JUDGE, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

Ref No. : 638/2008

Date of Institution : 29.10.2008

Date of decision : 26.11.2010

Shri Bali Ram S/o Shri Bhagat Ram, R/o Village Kalswayi, P.O. Dharampur, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District

Mandi, H.P.

….Petitioner.

Versus

9624

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 15 ekpZ] 2011@24 QkYxqu] 1932

The Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Division Dharampur, Tehsil Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi, H.P. ….Respondent.

Reference under section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. N.L. Kaundal, AR

Sh. Vijay Kaundal, Adv.

For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Katoch, Ld. Dy.D.A.

AWARD

The following reference was received for adjudication from the appropriate Government:

“Whether retrenchment of services of Shri Bali Ram S/o Shri Bhagat Ram by the Executive

Engineer, HPPWD Division Dharampur, Tehsil Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi, w.e.f. 08.7.2005 without

following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what

amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above Ex-Worker is

entitled to from the above employer?”

The case of the petitioner, as it emerges from the statement of claim is that he was appointed as a daily

waged beldar by the respondent in the year 1999 in Dharampur Division of HPPWD. He continued to work as such till

7.7.2005 and his services were dispensed with illegally w.e.f. 8.7.2005.