jkti=] fgekpy izns'k

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

f”keyk]

f”keyk] 'kqØ

'kqØ

'kqØokj]

kj]

kj] 18181818 ekpZ

ekpZ

ekpZ] 2011

] 2011

] 2011@27272727 QkYxqu

QkYxqu

QkYxqu] 1932

] 1932

fgekpy izns'k ljdkj

yksd fuekZ

sd fuekZ

sd fuekZ.k foHkkx

.k foHkkx

vf/klwpuk

f”keyk&2] 17 ekpZ] 2011

la0

la0%ih0ch0MCY;w0 ¼ch0½,Q0¼5½ 100@2010

ih0ch0MCY;w0 ¼ch0½,Q0¼5½ 100@2010

ih0ch0MCY;w0 ¼ch0½,Q0¼5½ 100@2010-&&

&&;r% fgekpy izns”k ds jkT;iky dks ;g izrhr gksrk

gS fd fgekpy izns'k ljdkj dks ljdkjh O;; ij lkoZtfud iz;kstu gsrq uker% mi egky [kaokxh]

rglhy dYik] ftyk fdUukSj esa lhek lMd laxBu dSEi iaokjh ds fuekZ.k gsrq Hkwfe vftZr djuh visf{kr

gS] vr,o ,rn~ }kjk ;g vf/klwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr ifj{ks= esa tSlk fd fuEu fooj.kh esa fufnZ’V

fd;k x;k gS] mijksDr iz;kstu ds fy, Hkwfe dk vtZu visf{kr gSA

260&jkti=@2011&18&3&2011

¼9839½

9840

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 18 ekpZ] 2011@27 QkYxqu] 1932

;g vf/klwpuk ,sls lHkh O;fDr;ksasa dks] tks blls lEcfU/kr gks ldrs gSa] dh tkudkjh ds fy,

Hkw&vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 dh /kkjk- 4 ds micU/kksa ds vUrxZr tkjh dh tkrh gSA

iwoksZDr /kkjk }kjk iznRr “kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, jkT;iky] fgekpy izns”k bl le; bl

miØe esa dk;Zjr lHkh vf/kdkfj;ksa muds deZpkfj;ksa vkSj Jfedksa dks bykds dh fdlh Hkh Hkwfe esa izos”k

djus vkSj losZ{k.k djus rFkk ml /kkjk }kjk visf{kr vFkok vuqer% vU; lHkh dk;ks± dks djus ds fy,

lg’kZ izkf/kdkj nsrs gSaA

4- vR;kf/kd vko”;drk ds n`f’Vxr jkT;iky] fgekpy izns”k ^^mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 17¼4½

ds v/khu ;g Hkh funsZ”k nsrs gS fd mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 5,¼2½ ds micU/k bl ekeysa esa ykxw ugh gksaxsA

Hkwfe dk jsa[kkd dk fujh{k.k dk;kZy; Hkw&vtZu lekgrkZ] fgekpy izns”k] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx

¼nf{k.k {ks=½] foUVj fQYM] f”keyk 3 esa fd;k tk ldrk gS A

fooj.kh

ftyk

rglhy

xkao

[kljk u0

jdok¼gS0 esa½

fdUukSj

dYik

[kokaxh

491

0&14&16

1163@508

0&13&11

486

0&02&88

718

0&05&42

742

0&05&56

756

0&06&52

fdrk% 6

0&47&65

vkns”k )kjk

gLrk{kfjr@&

iz/kku lfpo] ¼yksd fuekZ.k½A

&&&&&&&&&

dk;kZy; Hk

dk;kZy; Hkw&O;oLFkk vf/kdkjh] f'keyk e.My] f'keyk&171 009

w&O;oLFkk vf/kdkjh] f'keyk e.My] f'keyk&171 009

foKkiu Ukohu Hkw&jktLo rtoht ckor Ukxj ikfydk ifj"kn ik¡oVklkfgc] rglhy ik¡oVklkfgc]

ftyk fljekSj] fgekpy izns'kA

vf/klwpuk

fnuk¡d% 16 ekpZ] 2011

uEcj%jSoå ¼,låVhå½ ,lå,eå,yå@,å&uåiåik¡å&7@06 &&824&29

uEcj%jSoå ¼,låVhå½ ,lå,eå,yå@,å&uåiåik¡å&7@06 &&824&29-&&

&&1- Ukxj ikfydk ifj"kn

ik¡oVklkfgc] rglhy ik¡oVklkfgc ftyk fljekSj] fgekpy izns'k esa uohu Hkw&jktLo dk;e djus dh

rtoht gS] ftldk vuqeksnu fgekpy izns'k Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e 1954 dh /kkjk 53 ¼2½ ds vuqlkj

foŸkk;qDr ¼jktLo½ ls muds dk;kZy; i= la[;k % jSoå ch-,Q-¼8½ 1@2001&11 fnuk¡d% 16&11&2010 }kjk

izkIr gks pqdk gSA uohu rtoht dk laf{kIr O;ksjk fuEu izdkj ls gS %&

2- gky cUnksoLr esa tks uohu Hkw&jktLo dk;e fd;k tkuk gS og bl izdkj gS fd ;fn d`"V

jdck uSgjh] vksoM+ vOoy] vksoM+ nks;e] vksoM+ lks;e o [kknj nks;e ij lkfcd Hkw&jktLo ftl jdck ij

dk;e fd;k x;k Fkk ml ij fgekpy izns'k Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e 1954 dh /kkjk 54 ds vFkkZuqlkj gh cs'kh

nsus ij bu fdLeksa ij uohu njsa Øe'k% usgjh¾ #i;s 0-16] vksoM+ vOoy ¾ #i;s 0-08] vkosM+ nks;e ¾

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 18 ekpZ] 2011@27 QkYxqu] 1932

9841

#i;s 0-05 vksoM+ lks;e #i;s 0-04 o [kknj nks;e¾ #i;s 0-06 izfr lkS oxZehVj dh tkuh Fkh ijUrq gky

cUnksoLr esa bu fdLeksa ij ifjorZu vk;k gS o jdck Hkh ifjofrZr gqvk gSA blfy, gky cUnksoLr ds

vuqlkj d`"V jdck ij fuEu Hkw&jktLo njsa dk;e djus dh izLrkouk gS

Ukohu Hkw&jktLo njsasa izf

Ukohu Hkw&jktLo njsasa izfrlkS oxZ

rlkS oxZ

rlkS oxZehVj

ehVj

ehVj #i;s

#i;s

#i;s esasasasa

Øek¡d

fdLe Hkwfe

jdck

Hkw&jktLo njsa izfr lkS

oxZehVj #i;s

Uksgjh vOoy

2724375&24

0-16

Uksgjh nks;e

114838&95

0-15

Pkkgh

236688&52

0-14

lSykoh

1490-25

0-13

vksoM+ vOoy

176037&05

0-08

tksM+

3253430&01

3- blds vfrfjDr gky cUnksoLr esa fdLe ckxhpk Hkh ikbZ xbZ] ftlesa lkfcd cUnksoLr esa

Hkw&jktLo njsa dk;e ugha dh xbZ Fkha bu fdLeksa ij gky Hkw&O;oLFkk esa uohu Hkw&jktLo njsa dk;e djus

ls iwoZ muls gksus okyh vk; o gky cUnksoLr esa uxj iap;kr lqéh] uxj ikfydk ifj"kn~ fcykliqj o uxj

ikfydk ifj"kn~ ukykx<+ ds fy, Lohd`r njksa dks Hkh /;ku esa j[kk x;k gSA rqyukRed njsa fuEu izdkj ls

gSa%&&

Hkw&jktLo njsa izfr lkS oxZehVj #i;s esa

Øek¡d

Ukke 'kgj

fdLe vkjkth

nj #i;s

Ukxj iapk;r lqéh

Ckkxhpk ck[ky vOoy Qynkj

0-38

Ckkxhpk ck[kyvOoy fcyk Qynkj

0-20

Ukxj ikfydk ifj"kn fcykliqj

Ckkxhpk dqgyh Qynkj

0-10

Ckkxhpk ckjkuh Qynkj

0-09

Ukxj ikfydk ifj"kn ukykx<+

ckxhpkdqykgwQynkj

0-40

Ckkxhpk pkgh Qynkj

0-35

Ckkxhpk ckjkuh

0-25

mDr rqyukRed lkj.kh o gky cUnksoLr ds le; tks mRiknu dk vuqeku fd;k x;k mldks

e/;ut+j j[krs gq, Ukxj ikfydk ifj"kn ik¡oVklkfgc dh fdLe ckxhpk ij tks uohu njsa izLrkfor gSa

mudk o.kZu fuEuizdkj ls gS%&&

9842

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 18 ekpZ] 2011@27 QkYxqu] 1932

jdck oxZehVjksa esa Hkw&jktLo njsa

jdck oxZehVjksa esa Hkw&jktLo njsa #i;s

#i;s

#i;s esa izf

esa izf

esa izfr lkS

r lkS

r lkS oxZ

oxZ

oxZehVj

ehVj

Øek¡d

fdLe Hkwfe

jdck

Hkw&jktLo njsa Ikzfr lkS

oxZehVj #i;s

Ckkxhpk usgjh vOoy

113534&00

0-45

Ckkxhpk pkgh

20322&26

0-40

Ckkxhpk vksoM+ vOoy Qynkj

42330&89

0-35

tksM+

176187&15

vd`"V jdck ca

vd`"V jdck catj dnhe]

tj dnhe]

tj dnhe] ou o ouh ij izLrkf

ou o ouh ij izLrkf

ou o ouh ij izLrkfor Hkw&jktLo njsa %&&

or Hkw&jktLo njsa %&&

¼d½

¼d½ cat

cat

catj dnhe %

j dnhe %

jdck catj ij lkfcd Hkw&jktLo dk;e fd;k x;k Fkk] ftl ij gky cUnksoLr esa uohu njsa

dk;e djus dh izLrkouk gSA

jdck oxZehVjksa esa Hkw&jktLo njsa esa

Øek¡d

fdLe Hkwfe

jdck

Hkw&jktLo njsa Ikzfr lkS

oxZehVj #i;s

catj dnhe

209896&89

0-03

¼[k½

jdck ou]

jdck ou] ouh ij izLrkfor Hkw&jktLo njsa

ouh ij izLrkfor Hkw&jktLo njsa

ouh ij izLrkfor Hkw&jktLo njsa %

uxj ikfydk ifj"kn ik¡oVk lkfgc esa lkcdk fdLe ou o ouh dksbZ ugha Fkh bl fy, gky

cUnksoLr esa bl ij uohu Hkw&jktLo dk;e djus ls iwoZ uxj iapk;r lqéh ds fy, gky cUnksoLr esa

Lohd`r njksa rFkk bl uxj ikfydk ifj"kn Hkwfe dh mi;ksfxrk dks /;ku eas j[krs gq, fuEu njsa izLrkfor

dh tkrh gSa%&

jdck oxZ ehVjksa esa Hkw&jktLo nj esasa izfr lkS oxZeZehVj

Øek¡d

fdLe Hkwfe

jdck

Hkw&jktLo njsa Ikzfr lkS

oxZehVj #i;s

10438&04

0-04

o.kh

26869&68

0-03

dqy

37307&72

Ukxj ikfydk ifj"kn ik¡oVklkfgc esa Hkouksa ds uhps vkbZ Hkwfe vkSj tk, lQsn vkfn ij

igyhckj fgekpy izns'k Hkw&jktLo fo'ks"k fu/kkZj.k fu;e 1986 ds vFkkZuqlkj Hkw&jktLo dk;e fd;k tkuk

gS mDr fu;e 1986 ds fu;e 5 ds vFkkZuqlkj uxj ikfydk ifj"kn ik¡oVklkfgc dks rhu Js.kh@CykWd esa

foHkDr fd;k x;k gS tks fuEu izdkj ls gS%&&

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 18 ekpZ] 2011@27 QkYxqu] 1932

9843

Øek¡d

Ukke egky@miegky

Js.kh@CykWd

[kljk uEcj

miegky rk:okyk

izFke~

1693 rk 1733] 3015 rk 3171

f}rh;

77 rk 721]791 rk 1156

Rk`rh;

1 rk 76]722 rk 790] 1157 rk 1692]

1734 rk 3014

miegky /keZdksV

Rk`rh;

Lkkye miegky

miegky cnjhiqj

izFke~

28 rk 2209] 2240 rk 3121

f}rh;

1 rk 27] 2210 rk 2239

miegky nsohuxj

izFke~

Lkkye

miegky HkkVkoyh

f}rh;

48 rk 90] 103 rk 121]125 rk 160]

195 rk 206] 227 rk 253] 256 rk 320]

471 rk 638] 663 rk 720

Rk`rh;

1 rk 47] 91 rk 102]122 rk 124] 161

rk 194] 207 rk 226] 254] 255] 321

rk 470] 639 rk 662] 721 rk 761

miegky dsnkjiqj

f}rh;

14 rk 46] 55 rk 165] 168 rk 176]

180 rk 191] 249 rk 280] 324 rk 345

Rk`rh;

1 rk 13] 47 rk 54] 166] 167] 177 rk

179] 192 rk 248] 281 rk 323] 346 rk

354

miegky Hkwiiqj

f}rh;

81] 82] 85 rk 98] 113 rk 798] 870

rk 954] 962 rk 964] 966 rk 1003

Rk`rh;

1 rk 80] 83] 84] 99 rk 112] 799 rk

869] 955 rk 961] 965] 1004 rk 1017

miegky 'kqHk[ksM+k

izFke~

39 rk 174] 262 rk 273] 292 rk 940]

1061 rk 1171

f}rh;

1 rk 38] 175 rk 261] 274 rk 291]

941 rk 1060

miegky 'ke'ksjiqj

izFke~

1 rk 747

f}rh;

748 rk 1318] 1352 rk 1395

Rk`rh;

1319 rk 1351] 1396 rk 1609

10-

miegky ik¡oVklkfgc izFke~

izFke

Lkkye egky

11-

miegky ik¡oVklkfgc f}rh;

izFke~

1 rk 65] 74 rk 339] 365 rk 410] 529

rk 2167

f}rh;

66 rk 73] 340 rk 364] 411 rk 426]

431 rk 528

Rk`rh;

427 rk 430] 2168 rk 2176

Ukxj ikfydk ifj"kn ik¡oVklkfgc esa Hkouksa ds uhps vkbZ Hkwfe ij uohu njsa dk;e djus ls iwoZ

e.Mygtk esa blls iwoZ ftu uxj iapk;r o uxj ikfydk ifj"kn~ esa tks njsa dk;e gqbZ gSa mudk Hkh /;ku

j[kk x;k gS tks fuEuizdkj ls gS %&

jdck tk, lQsn o lSgu ij izLrkfor njsa

jdck tk, lQsn o lSgu ij izLrkfor njsa %&

%&&

bl izdkj ds jdck ij uohu Hkw&jktLo dk;e djus ls iwoZ gky gh esa lEié gq, cUnksoLr uxj

iapk;r lqéh] Ukxj ikfydk ifj"kn ik¡oVklkfgc o uxj ikfydk ifj"kn ukykx<+ ds fy, Lohdr njkas dk

voyksdu fd;k x;k tks fuEu izdkj ls gSa

9844

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 18 ekpZ] 2011@27 QkYxqu] 1932

Øek¡d

Ukke 'kgj

[email protected]

Tkk, lQsn o lSgu ds fy, Lohd`r

njsa #i;s

Ukxj iapk;r lqéh

izFke~

7-00

f}rh;

6-00

Rk`rh;

5-00

uxj ikfydk ifj"kn fcykliqj

izFke~

8-00

f}rh;

7-00

Rk`rh;

6-00

mDr rqyuk ds mijkUr uxj ikfydk ifj"kn ik¡oVklkfgc ds fy, tk, lQsn o lSgu ds fy, tks

Hkw&jktLo njsa izLrkfor gS og fuEu izdkj ls gSa %&&

Øek¡d

[email protected]

fdLe

dqy jdck

nj izfr lkS oxZehVj #i;s

izFke

479921&36

8-00

f}rh;

124654&25

7-00

Rk`rh;

Tkk, lQsn o lSgu

134941&09

6-00

dqy jdck

739516&70

uxj ikfydk ifj"kn ik¡oVklkfgc ds fy, Hkou ds uhps vkbZ Hkwfe ij uohu njsa dk;e djus ls iwoZ

e.Mygtk esa blls iwoZ ftu uxj iapk;rksa o uxj ikfydk ifj"kn esa tks njsa Lohd`r gqbZ gSa mudks Hkh

/;ku esa j[kk x;k gS ftldk laf{kIr O;ksjk fuEuizdkj ls gS %&&

Øek¡d

Js.kh@CykWd

fdLe Hkou

Ukxj

iapk;r lqéh

#i;s

Ukxj ikfydk

ifj"kn fcykliqj

#i;s

Ukxj ikfydk

ifj"kn~ ukykx<+

#i;s

izFke~

1-edkukr

15-00

16-00

2- nqdkukr

16-00

18-00

17-00

3- edkukr o

nqdkukr

15-00

4- gksVy

20-00

23-00

5- m|ksx

22-00

20-50

24-00

6-iSVªksyiEi

22-00

7-flusek?kj

21-00

f}rh;

1-edkukr

13-00

14-00

15-00

2-nqdkukr

15-00

17-00

16-00

3-edkukr o

nqdkukr

4-gksVy

22-00

19-00

5- m|ksx

20-00

23-00

6-iSVªksyiEi

21-00

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 18 ekpZ] 2011@27 QkYxqu] 1932

9845

7-flusek?kj

Rk`rh;

1-edku

12-00

13-00

14-00

2-nqdku

16-00

15-00

3-edkukr o nqdkukr &

4-m|ksx

22-00

uxj ikfydk ifj"kn~ ik¡oVklkfgc esa Hkouksa ds uhps vkbZ Hkwfe ij uohu Hkw&jktLo njsa mDr Lohd`r

rqyukRed njksa o 'kq) fdjk;k ds eqY; vkSj vkSLr cktkjh ewY; dh x.kuk o fgekpy izns'k Hkw&jktLo

vf/kfu;e 1954 dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, uxj ikfydk ifj"kn ik¡oVk lkfgc ds fy, uohu njsa fuEu izdkj ls

izLrkfor gSa %&&

jdck oxZ

ck oxZ

ck oxZehVjksa esa Hkw&jktLo njsa oxZehVjksa esa&njsas

ehVjksa esa Hkw&jktLo njsa oxZehVjksa esa&njsas

ehVjksa esa Hkw&jktLo njsa oxZehVjksa esa&njsas ¼izfr lkS oxZehVj½ es

¼izfr lkS oxZehVj½ es

¼izfr lkS oxZehVj½ esa %&

a %&

a %&&

Øek¡d

Js.kh@CykWd

fdLe Hkou@bZekjr

Jdck oxZehVjksa esa

Hkw&jktLo njsa izfr

lkS oxZehVj

izFke~

1- edkukr

306253&09

16-00

2- nqdkukr

27298&28

18-00

3- edkukr o nqdkukr

17190&71

17-00

4- gksVy

2099&02

24-00

5- jSLVksjsaV

284&68

26-00

6- m|ksx

7776&54

25-00

7- flusek?kj

766&70

22-00

f}rh;

1- edkukr

57230&83

15-00

2- nqdkukr

6570&91

17-00

3- edkukr o nqdkukr

1695&92

16-00

4- gksVy

798&54

23-00

5- m|ksx

3910&69

24-00

6- iSVªksyiEi

1111&00

22-00

Rk`rh;

1- edkukr

34681&16

14-00

2- nqdkukr

860&97

16-00

3- edkukr o nqdkukr

87&50

15-00

4- m|ksx

3848&08

23-00

5- iSVªksyiEi

1619&51

21-00

tksM+

474084&13

mDr rtoht ds vfrfjDr vf/klwpuk la[;k% 2&10@71 iap fnuk¡d% 21&12&1973 rFkk vU;

Li"Vªhdj.k tks funs'kd iapk;rh jkt ds i=uEcj% 'kwU; fnuk¡d% 27&03&1974 ds vFkkZuqlkj 'kgjh {ks=ksa esa

dsoy 20 izfr'kr 'kqYd yEcjnkjh ¼iatksrjk½ ds vfrfjDr dksbZ 'kqYd ekU; ugha gksxkA

fgekpy izns'k Hkw&jktLo ¼fo'ks"k½ fu/kkZj.k fu;e 1986 ds fu;e 15 ¼2½ ds vFkkZuqlkj mDr foKkiu

tkjh djds uxj ikfydk ifj"kn~ ik¡oVklkfgc ds Hkw&jktLo vfHknkrkvksa dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn

fdlh Hkw&jktLo vfHknkrkvksa dks mDr rtoht ckjs dksbZ ,srjkt@vkifŸk ;k lq>ko vkfn nsuk gks rks bl

foKkiu dh izkfIr ds nks ekg ds vUnj&vUnj fyf[kr :Ik esa bl dk;kZy; dks izsf"kr djsa] fuf'pr vof/k

ds vUnj ;fn fdlh izdkj dk lq>ko@,srjkt@vkifŸk vkfn izkIr u gksa rks mDr rtoht dks vfUre:Ik

fn;k tk,xkA

vkns'k }kjk]

gLrk{kfjr@&

Hkw&O;oLFkk vf/kdkjh]

f'keyk e.My] f'keyk&9

9846

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 18 ekpZ] 2011@27 QkYxqu] 1932

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

LABOUR COURT, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

Ref No. : 291/2001

Date of Institution : 19.11.2001

Date of decision : 29.9.2010

Sh. Yusaf s/o Sh. Abdula, Vill. Meda, P.O. Kihar, Tehsil Salooni, Distt. Chamba, H.P.

. . Petitioner.

Versus

The Divisional Officer, Forest (Forest Division, Salooni) District, Chamba, H.P.

. . Respondent.

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

For the Petitioner : Sh. T.R. Bhardwaj, AR.

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 act of Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Salooni, Distt. Chamba, H.P. not

regularizing the services of Sh. Yusaf s/o Sh. Abdula w.e.f. 01‐01‐1999 is proper and justified? If not,

what relief the above workman is entitled to?”

In furtherance to the reference the petitioner has averred in the statement of claim that he was employed

by the respondent as daily rated Mazdoor‐cum‐Chowkidar in the year 1987. He has completed more than 240 days in

each calendar year since 1989. The petitioner had been rendering continuous service with the respondent for the

purpose of Section 25‐B of the Industrial Disputes Act and he has completed more than 10 years of continuous service

with the respondent. He was thus liable to be regularized. The respondent had not followed the policy of the State and

rather his services were terminated during the pendency of conciliation proceedings for which he had filed separate

application under Section 33‐A. The respondents have already regularized the service of other juniors people. The

petitioner thus claim his regularization w.e.f. 1.1.1999.

The respondent while contesting the claim has averred that the petitioner was engaged in December,

1988, but he worked irregularly with the respondent till the year 2000. The month wise detail of the petitioner has been

attached along with. Since the petitioner had not completed 240 days in any calendar year since 1988, he was not

eligible for regularization as per the policy of the State. The respondent thus prayed for 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 24.5.2006 the following issues came to be framed by my ld. predecessor:

Whether the act of the respondent not to regularize the petitioner w.e.f. 1‐1‐1999 is tenable?

..OPP.

If the above issue is proved in the affirmative what benefits the petitioner is entitled to?

..OPP.

Relief.

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

on the issues framed above are thus:

Issue No. 1 : Partly yes

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

Relief. :

Partly allowed as per the operative part of the award.

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 18 ekpZ] 2011@27 QkYxqu] 1932

9847

Issue No. 1 & 2.

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

The petitioner in the reference seeks regularization w.e.f. 1‐1‐1999, so is the reference. During the

pendency of the reference the services of the petitioner had come to be disengaged in the year 2000. He also claims

reinstatement. However in the year 2006 along with other workmen even the petitioner was reengaged by the

respondent and he is thereafter continuously working with the respondent. The only case set up by the respondent is

that since the petitioner was irregular in attending work his service could not be regularized, as he has not completed

240 days in any calendar since the year 1988. There is no whisper in the pleadings that the petitioner had been engaged

for a seasonal forestry work. The Divisional Forest Officer who has appeared as a witness (RW1) though has tried to

portray that the petitioner had been employed for seasonal work and that to subject to availability of funds. The

respondent has also placed on record the upto date mandays chart. The said mandays chart belies the testimony of the

RW1. Even otherwise it is not the pleaded case of the respondent that the petitioner had been engaged for seasonal

work. Till the year 1999 as per the mandays submitted by the respondent himself, the petitioner had completed more

than 240 days in 5 years i.e. years 1990, 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999. He had completed 231 days (as per the respondent

in the year 1991). Thereupon his services were disengaged in the year 2000, along with other workmen. The petitioner

remained disengaged in the year 2002‐2003. Further per him the person juniors to him namely S/Sh. Singhu Ram,

Mohnu Ram, Kamal Kumar, Pyaroo, Har Dayal, Uttam, Chanalu, Sawaroo, Hans Raj and one Chaman had been

regularized w.e.f. March 1998 who are much junior to him.

There is no evidence on record to rebut the said deposition of the petitioner regarding juniors having not

been regularized. Having discharged the initial onus what was least expected, that the respondent would have proved

on record that the aforesaid people were not junior to the petitioner and had even completed more than 240 days in all

the calendar years. The services of the petitioner were discontinued for 4 years without any plausible reasons and that

too during the pendency of the reference. The respondents could not have changed the services conditions of the

petitioner and as such even if the 4 years are counted towards continuity and seniority the petitioner has completed

more than 8 years of continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year w.e.f. 1996 to 2003. The petitioner as such

was entitled for regularization in the year 2003, if not earlier.

10.

Both the issues are decided accordingly in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

RELIEF

11.

For all the aforesaid reasons discussed above the reference is partly allowed. The petitioner is thus held

entitled to regularization w.e.f. 1‐1‐2004. 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 29th day of Sept., 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. : 193/2009

Date of Institution : 27.2.2009

Date of decision : 2.7.2010

Shri Aatam Khan S/o Shri Sohan Khan, R/o Village Bhadyar, P.O. Barang, Tehsil Sarkaghat, Distt. 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.

9848

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 18 ekpZ] 2011@27 QkYxqu] 1932

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 Aatam Khan S/o Shri Sohan Khan 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 July, 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.

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.

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

authority‐cum‐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.

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 18 ekpZ] 2011@27 QkYxqu] 1932

9849

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

relief the petitioner is entitled to?

..OPP

Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged

..OPR

Whether the petition suffers from the vice of delay and laches

..OPR

Whether the petitioner is guilty of suppressio veri

..OPR

Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the claim petition by her act and conduct. ..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 back‐wages, litigation expenses and compensation with continuity of service from the date of

termination.

Issue 2 : No.

Issue 3 : No

Issue 4 : No

Issue 5 : No

Relief. : The petition allowed partly per operative part of the award.

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

Issue No. 1:

13.

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.

14.

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:

“25L (a) “industrial establishment”.—means15

(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) Labour Act, 1951 (69 of 1951);”

9850

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 18 ekpZ] 2011@27 QkYxqu] 1932

15.

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.”

16.

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.”

17.

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.

18.

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

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 18 ekpZ] 2011@27 QkYxqu] 1932

9851

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

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

as “malafide”.

19.

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.

20.

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

(c)

notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be

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

21.

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….”

22.

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.

9852

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 18 ekpZ] 2011@27 QkYxqu] 1932

23.

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 July, 1999. Innumerable people came to be appointed as daily waged beldar thereafter. The provisions of

the Act inter‐ alia 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:

“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”.

24.

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.

25.

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.

26.

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 reengaged 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.

27.

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.

28.

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 2:

29.

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.

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

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 18 ekpZ] 2011@27 QkYxqu] 1932

9853

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).

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.LO/MZ/IV/ID/154/06 &

1128/07‐347, dated 21.1.2008. 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/2008‐Mandi dated January 29, 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.

The respondent’s allegation that the petitioner is guilty of suppressio veri, does not appear to be having

a ring of truth, because the materials on record are not indicative of his having suppressed such fact(s) as may have a

vital bearing on the case. The Issue on hand is therefore held against the respondent and in favour of the petitioner.

Issue 5 :

33.

The rule of estoppel is not attracted in this case. The Ld. Dy. D.A. appearing for the respondent has also

not been able to show how the petitioner is estopped from filing the claim petition. The issue under discussion is

therefore held against the respondent and in favour of the petitioner.

RELIEF

34.

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 2nd day of July, 2010.

KR. CHIRAG BHANU SINGH,

Presiding Judge,

H.P. Industrial tribunal‐Cum-

Labour Court, Dharamshala.

_______________

IN THE COURT OF KR. CHIRAG BHANU SINGH, PRESIDING JUDGE, H.P. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, DHARAMSHALA (H.P.)

Ref. No. : 319/2008

Instituted on : 13.6.2008

Decided on: : 5.7.2010

Shri Amar Singh S/o Shri Narpat Ram, R/o village Kohan, P.O. Sajoopiplu, Tehsil Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi.

H.P.

..Petitioner.

9854

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 18 ekpZ] 2011@27 QkYxqu] 1932

Vs.

The Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division Dharampur, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P.

..Respondent.

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

For the Petitioners : Sh. Suresh Kumar, Adv.

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

AWARD

The appropriate Government seeks adjudication by this Court on the following point of Reference:

“Whether retrenchment of services of Shri Amar Singh S/o Shri Narpat Ram by the Executive

Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division, Dharampur, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. w.e.f. 08‐07‐2005

without following the provision of the 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 no.3 on 1.6.1999 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.

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.