-
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k
fgekpy izns'k jkT; 'kklu }kjk izdkf'kr
f”keyk] 'kfuokj 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
fgekpy izns'k ljdkj
LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATION
Shimla-2, the 14th January, 2013
No. Sharm (A) 7-1/2005 (Award) –Loose.— In exercise of the powers vested in her under
section 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, the Governor Himachal Pradesh is pleased to order
the publication of awards announced by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dharamshala of the
following cases on the website of Labour & Employment Department:–
Sr.
Case No:
Title of the Case
Date of Award
No:
1.
261/10
Smt./Shri Ashok Kumar
White Heaven Tea
21-07-2012
Estate
2.
449/10
Kailash Chand
EE-I&PH Dalhousie
1-8-2012
3.
157/10
Yash Pal
C&C Co.
13-8-2012
4.
78/11
Bhag Singh
EE HPPWD Salooni
3-9-2012
5.
493/09
Daulat Ram
BDO Tissa
3-9-2012
By order,
Sd/-
Addl. Chief Secretary ( Labour & Employment)
218&jkti=@2013&19&1&2013 ¼6077½
6078
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
IN THE COURT OF RAJAN GUPTA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR
COURT-CUM-INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.
Ref No. : 261/2010
Date of Institution : 18.11.2010
Date of Decision : 21.7.2012
Shri Ashok Kumar Awasthi s/o Shri Girdhari Lal Awasthi, r/o Village Gorda
Bhanala,P.O.& Tehsil Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Versus
(1) The Proprietor, White Heaven Tea Estate, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P.
(2) Manager, White Heaven Tea Estate, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P.
..Respondents.
Reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For the Petitioner :
Sh. K.K. Chaudhary, Adv.
For the Respondents :
Sh. Gaurav Pathania, Adv.
AWARD
The below given reference has been received from the appropriate Government for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of (1) The Proprietor, White Heaven Tea
Estate, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (2) Manager, White Heaven Tea Estate,
Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. to terminate again the services of Shri Ashok
Kumar Awasthi s/o Shri Girdhari Lal Awasthi w.e.f. 21.7.2008 vide notice dated
21.07.2008 and that too inspite of award dated 12.06.2001 passed by the Ld. Labour
Court Shimla and upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of H.P., Shimla on 05.09.2007
and implementation of the award partially thereof, is legally maintainable & justified?
If not, to what back wages, service benefits and relief the above named workman is
entitled to?”
2. The case of the petitioner (as set out in the statement of claim/demand) is that his
services were engaged as a Munshi by the respondents in Tea Estate, Dharamshala in the year
1984. He performed his duties honestly and to the satisfaction of his superiors continuously up-to
30.12.1994. On the said date, his services were terminated by the respondents without following the
procedure prescribed in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the Act’ for short). The matter was
brought by him to the notice of Labour Officer, Dharamshala. The appropriate Government then
sent a reference to the Labour Court, Shimla. Such reference/claim petition was decided in his
(petitioner’s) favour per Award dated 12.6.2001 rendered by the Labour Court, Shimla. The
respondents were directed to reinstate him in service and pay the back wages. Against the
Order/Award dated 12.6.2001 of the Labour Court, Shimla the respondents preferred Civil Writ
Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The writ petition was rejected by the
Hon’ble High Court vide judgment dated 05.9.2007. The decision of the Labour Court, Shimla was
upheld. As per the orders of the Labour Court, Shimla and the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal
Pradesh, he (petitioner) joined the service once again on 01.10.2007. He used to perform his duties
regularly as per the instructions issued by the respondents. Due to the litigation, the behaviour of
the respondents changed towards him. They stopped paying the salary to him without any reason.
6079
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
Consequently, he (petitioner) instituted an application on 06.5.2008 before the Commissioner for
Payment of Wages cum SDO (Civil), Dharamshala. That application was also decided in his
favour. During the pendency of the case, his services were again terminated by the respondents on
21.7.2008 wrongly and illegally as well as in violation of the Award dated 12.6.2001 passed by the
Labour Court, Shimla. On the next day i.e. 22.7.2008 when he (petitioner) reported for duty in Tea
Estate, Dharamshala, he was not allowed to perform the work by the respondents on the pretext that
his services have already been dispensed with. He was shocked to hear this version of the
respondents. He is the senior most employee in the establishment. He is ready to perform his duties
regularly as per the choice and instructions of the respondents. The latters have failed to adhere to
the principle of ‘last come first go’. Legal notice dated 10.9.2008 was served upon the respondents
by him. No reply to the said notice was received. Thereafter, he (petitioner) reported the matter to
Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Dharamshala. The respondents were summoned during the
proceedings. They did not agree to his (petitioner’s) demand for reinstatement in service etc.
As such, as is apparent from the prayer clause of the petition/statement of claim, the
petitioner has claimed the following relief(s) in this case.
“the services of the applicant be restored forthwith w.e.f. 12.7.2008 respondent may
also be directed to pay all outstanding amount of wages w.e.f. 12.7.2008 till the date of
reinstate of service of the applicant. The termination order dated 12.7.2008 be quashed
being illegal and heavy penalty be upon the respondents for their illegal acts. It is,
further prayed that the respondents may also be directed to pay half monthly pay till
the decision of the case”.
3. On notice, the respondents appeared. They filed joint reply controverting the
averments made in the petition/statement of claim. Preliminary objection has been taken to the
effect that the petitioner has no cause of action. In the previous application bearing No.4/2009
decided by this Court, the petitioner has received a sum of Rs.32325/- as full and final settlement of
his claim. The application was disposed of by this Court on 20.10.2010.
On merits, it has been owned that the petitioner was appointed as a Munshi in the year 1984
by them (respondents). Taking place of the earlier litigation and passing of various orders by the
Courts stands admitted. However, ithas been pleaded that the services of the petitioner were
disengaged w.e.f. 21.7.2008 after following the procedure prescribed in the Act. The post of
Munshi was abolished as it was no more required. For the said reason the services of the petitioner
were terminated. Notice alongwith the compensation amount was duly offered to the petitioner
which he refused to accept. Thereafter, the notice of retrenchment and compensation money were
sent to the petitioner through registered post. He refused to accept the registered letter. After
21.7.2008, the petitioner never attended the work. He is a habitual litigant and is taking the
advantage of the liberties offered to the employees in general. The post of Munshi was abolished
since the number of workers working in the Tea Garden had fallen to less than 10. The petitioner is
not entitled to re-employment etc. The petition is meritless.
In these circumstances, the respondents pray that the petition in hand be dismissed with
costs.
4. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has reiterated the contents of the petition and refuted the
objections put forth by the respondents. It has been maintained that the application No.4/2009
related to the payment of back wages w.e.f. 30.12.1994 to 06.3.2002 as per the Order/Award dated
12.6.2001 pronounced by the Labour Court, Shimla. The present dispute was neither resolved nor
settled in the said application. Rs.32,325/- were paid by the respondents being the arrears of wages
from 30.12.1994 to 06.3.2002.
6080
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
5. Per order dated 21.9.2011, following issues were struck by my ld. Predecessor:
1. Whether the disengagement of the petitioner w.e.f. 21.7.2008 is violative of the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act as alleged, despite an earlier Award
passed by this Court on 12.6.2001. If so, to what relief the petitioner is entitled to?
..OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action in view of an earlier application
No.4/2009 decided by this Court vide an Order dated 20.10.2010 as alleged. If so, to what effect?
..OPR.
3. Relief.
6. I have heard the ld. counsel/AR for the parties and have gone through the case file.
7. For the reasons detailed here under, my findings on the above issues are as follows:–
Issue No.1 :
Yes
Issue No.2 :
No
Relief.
:
Claim petition allowed in part
vide operative portion of the Award.
Reasons for findings
Issues No. 1 And 2
8. Being interlinked and to avoid the repetition, both these issues are taken up together
for discussion and disposal.
9. The petitioner Shri Ashok Kumar stepped into the witness box as PW1. He reiterated
on oath the contents of the petition/statement of claim in its entirety.
10. In the cross-examination, he denied that a notice of retrenchment dated 09.7.2008 was
sent to him by the respondents which he refused to receive. He also denied that the refusal was
made by him in the presence of S/Sh. Manohar Lal, Tinku Singh and Goldy. He admitted that
Rs.32325/- were paid to him by the respondents as per the order of the Court. He denied that his
entire dues uptil date and compensation have been paid to him by the respondents. Receipt Ex.
PW1/F has been issued by his counsel Sh. K.K. Chaudhary, Adv. He denied that he has instituted a
phoney petition to harass his adversaries.
11. Conversely, Sh. S.S. Sidhu, Manager, White Heaven Tea Estate, Dharamshala
(respondent No.2) testified as RW2. In his affidavit Ex. RW2/A submitted in accordance with
Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, he corroborated on oath the contents of the reply filed by him.
12. In the cross-examination, he admitted that earlier also the services of the petitioner
were disengaged and the litigation had taken place which was decided in favour of the workman
(petitioner). He admitted that the petitioner used to attend to his work regularly. He denied that the
services of the petitioner have been terminated in a wrongful manner.
13. RW1 is Shri Jeevan Kumar, Peon of this office/Court. He simply brought the file of the
application No.4/2009 titled as Ashok Kumar vs. Manager, White Heaven Tea Estate, Dharamshala
and proved the documents Exts. RW1/A to C.
6081
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
14. Ex. PW1/A is the copy of the Award dated 12.6.2001 rendered by the Ld. Presiding
Judge, H.P. Labour Court, Shimla in Reference No.141/1996, titled as Shri Ashok Kumar Awasthi
vs. Manager, White Heaven Tea Estate, Dharamshala & Anr.
15. Ex. PW1/B is the copy of the judgment dated 05.9.2007 pronounced by the Hon’ble
High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 672/2001. It depicts that the writ petition preferred
by the respondents against the Award dated 12.6.2001 was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court of
Himachal Pradesh.
16. Ex. PW1/C is the copy of the notice of retrenchment dated 21st July, 2008 served upon
the petitioner by the respondent No.2.
17. Ex. PW1/D is the copy of the legal notice dated 10.9.2008 sent by the petitioner to the
respondents.
18. Ex. PW1/E is the copy of the order dated 20.10.2010 passed by my ld. Predecessor in
Application No.4/2009. It unfolds that the application instituted by Shri Ashok Kumar (petitioner)
against the respondents was dismissed having been satisfied.
19. Ex. PW1/F is the copy of receipt issued by the ld. counsel for the petitioner in the
earlier litigation. It shows that a cheque of Rs. 32,325/- was received by Sh. K.K. Chaudhary, Adv.,
Dharamshala ld. counsel for the petitioner, on his behalf in the case titled as Ashok Kumar vs.
White Heaven Tea Estate which was pending in this Court being full and final payment and
settlement of the case.
20. Ex. PW1/G is the copy of the judgment dated 16.11.2008 passed by the Commissioner
Workmen’s Compensation, Dharamshala in case No.4/2008 titled as Ashok Kumar vs. Manager,
White Heaven Tea Estate, Dharamshala & Anr.
21. Ex. RW1/A is the copy of the order dated 20.10.2010. It corresponds to Ex. PW1/E.
22. Ex. RW1/B is the copy of the statement made by the petitioner on 20.10.2010 before
this Court in Application No.4/2009. The petitioner stated before the Court that the matter has been
compromised with the respondents. For this reason, he does not want to pursue the case and it be
dismissed as withdrawn.
23. Ex. RW1/C is the copy of Application No.4/2009 which was moved before this Court
by the applicant/petitioner against the respondents.
24. It is admitted case of the respondents that the services of the petitioner were engaged
as a Munshi in the year 1984 and the same were firstly terminated on 30.12.1994. The termination
order dated 30.12.1994 was challenged by the petitioner. The same was upset by the Court(s). Per
Award dated 12.6.2001, the copy of which is Ex. PW1/A, the ld. Presiding Judge, Labour Court,
Shimla directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service. It was also ordered by the
Court that the petitioner shall be entitled to the seniority and continuity in service. Further, the
respondents were directed to pay back wages to the extent of 30% of the last pay drawn by the
petitioner from the date of his retrenchment till reinstatement. Against the Award dated 12.6.2001,
the respondents preferred Civil Writ Petition No.672/2001 before the Hon’ble High Court of
Himachal Pradesh. The same was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court vide judgment dated
05.9.2007, the copy of which is Ex. PW1/B.
6082
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
25. In para No.6 of the petition, it has been pleaded that as per the orders of Labour Court,
Shimla, the petitioner joined the service of the respondents on 01.10.2007 and performed his duties
regularly. This fact has not been denied by the respondents in their reply. The version of the
respondents is that the services of the petitioner were terminated w.e.f. 21.7.2008 as the post of
Munshi was abolished. Notice of retrenchment dated 21st July, 2008, the copy of which is Ex.
PW1/C, was given to the petitioner by the respondents.
26. Sh. S.S. Sidhu (RW2) in his cross-examination admitted that after the decision of the
Writ Petition by the Hon’ble High Court the petitioner kept on attending to his duties regularly.
27. Section 25-F of the Act reads thus:
“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.”
28. There is nothing on the record to show that one month’s notice in writing indicating
the reasons for retrenchment was served upon the petitioner by the respondents. Further, there is
nothing on the file to suggest that the workman (petitioner) was paid the retrenchment
compensation etc. The provisions of Section 25-F of the Act have not been complied with by the
respondents. The termination of the petitioner is thus illegal and unjustified.
29. The assertion of the respondents that the petitioner refused to receive the retrenchment
notice and compensation etc. in the presence of S/Sh. Manohar Lal, Tinku Singh and Goldy does
not appear to be true as none of them has been examined. Since material witnesses have been
withheld by the respondents an adverse inference under Section 114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act
has to be drawn against them.
30. So far as the order dated 20.10.2010, the copy of which is Ex. PW1/E, passed by this
Court in Application No.4/2009 is concerned, I will like to say that only the execution of the earlier
Award preferred by the petitioner was satisfied. The receipt Ex. PW1/F was issued by the ld.
counsel
for
the
petitioner
being
full
and
final
payment
and
settlement
of
the
case/execution/application No.4/2009 only. There was no reason or occasion for the ld. counsel for
the petitioner to receive Rs.32,325/- being full and final settlement of the claim (including the
retrenchment in question) particularly when Ex. PW1/C i.e. the copy of the notice dated 21.7.2008
suggests that the respondents had forwarded a cheque worth Rs.53,460/- as one month’s notice pay
and compensation to the petitioner.
31. That being so, I have no hesitation to conclude that the petitioner has a cause of action.
His retrenchment dated 21.7.2008 ordered by the respondents is unlawful.
6083
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
32. While deposing in the Court as PW1, the petitioner has given his age as 57 years. It
does not appeal to a reasonable mind that a person like the petitioner will sit at home during the
period he is/was out of the service. The petitioner has failed to discharge the initial onus that during
the period of his forced idleness, he was not gainfully employed. He is, thus, not entitled to the
back wages.
33. These issues are decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF (ISSUE NO.3)
34. As a sequel to my findings on the issues No.1 and 2, the instant claim petition succeeds
in part and the same is partly allowed. The retrenchment of the petitioner is set aside and quashed.
The respondents are directed to re-engage the petitioner forthwith (if he has not attained the age of
superannuation). He shall be entitled to the seniority and continuity in service from the date of his
illegal termination except back wages. Parties to bear their own costs.
35. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
36. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the
official gazette.
37. File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room. Announced in the open
Court today this 21st day of July, 2012.
(RAJAN GUPTA)
Presiding Judge,
Labour Court-cum-Industrial
Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P.
________
IN THE COURT OF RAJAN GUPTA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR
COURT-CUM-INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.
Ref No. : 78/2011
Date of Institution : 25.6.2011
Date of Decision : 03.9.2012
Shri Bhag Mal s/o Shri Rattu Ram, r/o Village & P.O. Deot (Chhota Bhangal), Tehsil
Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Versus
The Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. 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, Dy. D.A.
6084
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
AWARD
The below given reference has been received from the appropriate Government for adjudication:
“Whether the verbal termination of services of Shri Bhag Mal s/o Shri Rattu Ram by
the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division, Salooni, District Chamba, H.P. w.e.f.
01.10.1999 (Dispute referred keeping in view the order dated 22.03.2007 of Himachal
Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.493/2000 filed by the above named
worker) without serving notice, without holding enquiry and without complying the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what
wages, service benefits and relief the above named workman is entitled to?”
2. The case of the petitioner (as set out in the statement of claim/demand) is that as per an
office order issued by the SE, HPPWD, Dalhousie he was appointed as junior draftsman on
contract basis in the office of the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Salooni, District Chamba. He
was required to join the duties on or before 03.2.1995. Due to unwarranted reasons, he (petitioner)
wrote a letter to the respondent expressing his inability to join on or before the due date i.e.
03.2.1995. The respondent then extended the period of joining up-to 28.2.1995 and he (petitioner)
joined the office of Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D., Salooni Division on 23.2.1995. His services
were engaged on contractual basis on payment of the monthly emoluments of Rs.2600/-. He
worked continuously as a junior draftsman up-to 23.2.1996. On the completion of one year, the
contract period was regularly extended by the respondent from time to time up-to 30.9.1999. The
first, second and third extensions of the contract were accorded by the respondent for one year
each. Suddenly, after the completion of the third extension of one year contract period, the 4th
extension of the contract was given by the respondent up-to 30.6.1999. The 5th and last extension
was accorded by the respondent till 30.9.1999. In this way, he (petitioner) availed five extensions
of the contract up-to 30.9.1999. The extensions were given by the respondent unilaterally. He
(petitioner) never requested for the extension of the contract period. From 23.2.1995 to 30.9.1999,
he served the respondent/department continuously without any break. On 30th September, 1999
when the last extension/term of the contract came to an end, the then Executive Engineer,
H.P.P.W.D., Division Salooni verbally terminated his (petitioner’s) services and asked him not to
attend the office in future. Since the Executive Engineer was not his (petitioner’s) appointing
authority, the oral termination order passed by him is illegal. The post of junior draftsman is still
lying vacant at Salooni. He served the respondent for almost four years and seven months. He had
completed 240 days of work in each and every calendar year of his employment as well as in a
block of 12 calendar months preceding the date of his retrenchment. His services have been
disengaged in an illegal and arbitrary manner. The termination order dated 30.9.1999 has put him
on the verge of starvation. He performed his duties uptil 30.9.1999 with utmost sincerity, care and
caution. No complaint was received against him from any quarter by the respondent. In the year
2000, he (petitioner) preferred Original Application No.493/2000 before the Hon’ble Himachal
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal against the order of his illegal termination. The said original
application was withdrawn by him, in view of the objection raised by the respondent that the matter
is covered under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the Act’ for short). While seeking the
permission to withdraw the original application, he (petitioner) also sought liberty of the Hon’ble
Administrative Tribunal to approach the appropriate Court/Forum for the redressal of his
grievances. Before the termination of his services, neither any notice was given to him nor the
retrenchment compensation was paid. The persons who are/were similarly situated and junior to
him (petitioner) were retained in service by the respondent. His services have been dispensed with
without assigning any reason. The respondent has failed to adhere to the principle of ‘last come
first go’. The persons junior to him (petitioner) are still serving the respondent/department and their
services have been regularized. He belongs to the poor strata of the society and has no other source
of income. Shri Hukam Singh (Junior Draftsman) who is/was similarly situated is still working
6085
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
with the respondent. The act and conduct of the respondent is highly illegal and unjustified. The
same is also violative of the provisions of Sections 25-B, 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act. As such,
he (petitioner) prays that his termination be set aside. The respondent be directed to re-engage him
in service with all consequential benefits including the seniority, continuity in service and payment
of back wages etc.
3. On notice, the respondent appeared. He filed detailed reply controverting the
averments made in the petition/statement of claim. Preliminary objections have been raised to the
effect that the claim petition is not maintainable since no legal or fundamental right of the petitioner
has been infringed. The petitioner was appointed on contract basis against the civil post of junior
draftsman in the year 1995 on payment of the consolidated sum of Rs.2600/- per month vide
appointment letter dated 27.1.1995 issued by SE, HPPWD, Dalhousie. The said post requires the
use of special knowledge regarding the preparation of plans and estimates. The post which the
petitioner was holding is governed by the statutory service rules framed under the Constitution of
India. The petitioner is not covered under the definition of a ‘workman’ as provided in the Act. The
petition is bad on account of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. He has misrepresented
himself and has approached the Court by concealing the material facts. The petitioner is estopped
from raking the industrial dispute by his act and conduct.
On merits, it has been owned that the services of the petitioner were engaged as a junior
draftsman on contract basis on payment of the monthly emoluments of Rs.2600/- and he joined the
service on 23.2.1995. The fact that the contract period of the petitioner was extended from time to
time up-to 30.9.1999 stands admitted. The appointment letter/order of the petitioner is annexure R-
I. His mandays chart is annexure R-II. The petitioner was given the time to join the service in the
office of the Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Division Salooni up-to 31.1.1995 as per the
appointment letter/order dated 27.1.1995. Since the petitioner failed to join the duties, the joining
time was extended up-to 28.2.1995 in accordance with the letter dated 22.2.1995 (annexure R-III)
issued by the SE, HPPWD. The petitioner joined the service on 23.2.1995. His engagement was
purely on contract basis on payment of the fixed monthly salary. On the expiry of the contract
period of one year on 27.2.1996, the extension was accorded from time to time up-to 31.3.2001. In
spite of the extensions continuously granted by the Government, the petitioner left the job of his
own on 01.10.1999, and thereafter, he never resumed his duties in the office of the Executive
Engineer, HPPWD Salooni for regular engagement. The services of the petitioner were not
terminated as alleged. When the extension of contract period from competent authority was
available, the question of the termination of the services of the petitioner does not arise. It has been
admitted that the petitioner had preferred Original Application No.493/2000 before the erstwhile
Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Such original application was decided by the
Hon’ble Administrative Tribunal vide judgment dated 01.8.2006. The original application was
dismissed by the Hon’ble Administrative Tribunal for non appearance of the applicant/petitioner.
Subsequently, per order dated 22.3.2007, the Hon’ble Administrative Tribunal granted the liberty to
the applicant/petitioner to approach the appropriate Court/Forum under the Act. The demand notice
was sent by the petitioner three years after passing of the order dated 22.3.2007 by the Hon’ble
Tribunal. The lapse of time has caused fading of the dispute. The delay on the part of the petitioner
reveals that he is/was not interested to do the job. The services of the petitioner cannot be reinstated
now at a belated stage as the contract period elapsed on 31.3.2001. A false petition has been
instituted by the petitioner. Infact, he never turned up w.e.f. 01.10.1999 to discharge his duties
despite the conveying of continuous extensions up-to 31.3.2001 accorded by the Government from
time to time. Now the work and funds are not available. Since the petitioner abandoned the job of
his own, he is not entitled to any protection under the Act. The petitioner was a contractual Class-
III appointee holding the civil post. No direct recruitment of junior draftsman has been made by the
Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Salooni Division. The persons, who qualified the examination
conducted by the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Board, were appointed as junior
6086
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
draftsmen as per the sanction conveyed by the competent authority. The petitioner was not
interested to work as a junior draftsman on contract basis despite the extensions granted up-to
31.3.2001 and left the service voluntarily. So far as Shri Hukam Singh is concerned, he was
appointed as a junior draftsman on contract basis alongwith the petitioner. His contract period was
also extended from time to time alongwith the petitioner. Shri Hukam Singh continued serving the
department. As per the policy of the Government, his services were regularized in the cadre of the
junior draftsman. The petitioner is privately employed. He also works as an agriculturist to earn his
livelihood. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The petition is meritless.
In these circumstances, the respondent prays that the petition in hand be dismissed with
costs.
4. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has reiterated the contents of the petition/statement of
claim and refuted the objections put forth by the respondent. It has been maintained that the
seniority list produced by the respondent shows that many draftsmen have been appointed after his
engagement. Persons shown at serial No. 93 onwards in the provisional seniority list were
appointed on 01.4.1995 and thereafter. Their services have been regularized by the respondent. His
(petitioner’s) services were disengaged without any rhyme or reason. Many persons who were
similarly situated and junior to him have been retained and regularized in service by the respondent.
Approximately, 133 persons junior to him have been retained in service and regularized. Before the
termination of his services, no notice was served upon him. Even the retrenchment compensation
was not paid. Neither he was charge sheeted nor an inquiry was conducted against him. He was not
given an opportunity of personal hearing. Once the juniors have been retained in service by the
respondent, he (petitioner) has the preferential right of employment. He had been pursuing the
matter before the respondent. The latter kept on alluring and assuring by saying that his case will be
considered. Till date nothing has been done. The representations were also made by him time and
again, but in vain. Despite the extensions having been given, he was not allowed to join his duties.
No notice was issued by the respondent calling upon him to explain as to why he (petitioner) is not
coming forward to resume the work. The respondent did not allow him to work intentionally and
willfully. His services were terminated by the respondent by a verbal order.
5. Vide order dated 05.12.2011, following issues were struck by my ld. Predecessor:–
1. Whether the disengagement of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.10.1999 is violative of the
provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act as
alleged. If so, to what relief the petitioner is entitled to? ..OPP.
2. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable as alleged. If so, to what effect?
..OPR.
3. Whether the reference suffers from the vice of delay and laches as alleged. If so,
to what effect?
..OPR.
4. Relief.
6.
I have heard the ld. counsel/AR for the parties and have gone through the case file. In
support of his arguments, the ld. AR for the petitioner has cited the below mentioned rulings:–
i.
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board versus Shri Charan Dass, 2012 (1) Him
L.R. (DB) 320.
ii. Anoop Sharma versus Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1, Panipat
(Haryana), (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 497.
6087
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
iii Suresh Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 2010 (3) Him. L.R.
1394.
iv. Central Bank of India versus S. Satyam and Others, (1996) 5 Supreme Court
Cases 419.
v. The Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Dharampur Division (in all cases) versus Nihal
Chand, 2010 (Sup) Him. L.R. DB 2156.
vi. State of H.P. and another versus Kapil Dev, 2011 (3) Him. L.R. (DB) 1145.
I have scanned all these authorities. With humility, I feel it apposite to mention here that
they turned on their own facts and do not hold good in view of the facts and circumstances of the
present lis.
7. For the reasons detailed here under, my findings on the above issues are as follows:–
Issue No.1 : No
Issue No.2 : Yes
Issue No.3 : Not pressed
Relief.
: Claim petition dismissed vide operative portion of the Award
Reasons for findings
Issues No. 1 and 2
8. Being interlinked and to avoid the repetition, both these issues are taken up together
for discussion and disposal.
9. The petitioner Shri Bhag Mal stepped into the witness box as PW1. In his affidavit Ex.
PW1/A submitted under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, he reiterated on oath the contents of the
petition/statement of claim in its entirety. He also placed on the record the documents Exts. PW1/B
and C. Ex. PW1/B is the copy of a letter dated 22.2.1995 written by the SE, HPPWD to the
petitioner vide which the time for joining the post of junior draftsman in Salooni Division of
HPPWD was extended up-to 28.2.1995 pursuant to an application dated 18.2.1995 submitted by the
petitioner. Ex. PW1/C is the copy of the office order dated 27.1.1995 issued by the SE, HPPWD,
Dalhousie regarding the appointment of the petitioner as junior draftsman on contract basis for a
period of one year from the date of joining the post on payment of the consolidated emoluments of
Rs.2600/- each month.
In the cross-examination, he admitted that he had joined the service after admitting the
terms of appointment as contained in the office order Ex. PW1/C. He also admitted that he was
appointed for one year only at the first instance and, thereafter, he was given the extension from
time to time. He denied that he left the service of his own w.e.f. 30.9.1999. He feigned ignorance
about the fact that the respondent/department had extended his term of appointment up-to
31.3.2001. Self stated, he did not receive any letter in this regard. He had instituted O.A.
No.493/2000 before the Hon’ble Administrative Tribunal regarding his termination in the month of
September, 1999. He denied that the respondent had disclosed before the Hon’ble Administrative
Tribunal that the extensions have been issued in his favour from time to time. He admitted that
once his original application was dismissed by the Hon’ble Tribunal due to the non appearance.
The instant industrial dispute was raised by him per demand notice dated 13.8.2010, the copy of
which is Ex.R2. He admitted that Shri Hukam Singh was also appointed as a junior draftsman like
6088
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
him. The sanction orders regarding Shri Hukam Singh used to come alongwith his (PW1’s) orders.
He does not know that Shri Hukam Singh kept on serving the respondent/department after
30.9.1999 in accordance with the sanction order(s). He is not aware of the fact that even after
30.9.1999 the joint sanction regarding his employment and the employment of Shri Hukam Singh
used to be given by the competent authority. He refuted that Shri Hukam Singh had told him that
the sanction/extension has been given in his favour by the department and he (petitioner) should
join the service. He admitted that he and Shri Hukam Singh were appointed against Class-III posts
in Salooni Division only. He does not know that the services of Shri Hukam Singh were regularized
by the Government on completion of the requisite days of work. He denied that he left the service
as the respondent was paying him only Rs.2600/- per month and he was earning more by serving
privately. Further, he denied that no work is available for him with the respondent/department after
31.3.2001. Volunteered, the post is lying vacant at present.
10. Conversely, Shri A.K. Abrol, Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Salooni testified
as RW1. He corroborated on oath the contents of the reply filed by the respondent.
11. In the cross-examination, he denied that the services of the petitioner were disengaged
w.e.f. 01.10.1999. He admitted that no notice was served upon the petitioner calling upon him to
resume his duties after he left the service. Neither the petitioner was charge sheeted nor an inquiry
was conducted against him. He admitted that the junior draftsmen, who were appointed on contract
basis have been regularized as per the policy of the Government. Self stated, the petitioner did not
fulfill the criteria of eight years of service. He admitted that the persons whose names figure at
serial No.162 to 226 of the seniority list have been newly appointed as junior draftsmen by the
department. Volunteered, their services have been regularized as they were the daily wagers. At the
time of engaging new/fresh hands or regularizing the services of the daily wagers, an opportunity of
re-employment was not afforded to the petitioner. He admitted that in the year 2011, one Shri Tara
Chand was appointed as junior draftsman on contract basis in Salooni Division. He also admitted
that the post of the petitioner was lying vacant and the same was filled in the year 2011 on the
engagement of Sh. Tara Chand on contract basis. At the time of appointment of Shri Tara Chand,
no notice of reemployment was given to the petitioner. He admitted that as per the sanctioned
strength even today one post of junior draftsman is lying vacant in Salooni Division of the
HPPWD. The copies of the extensions orders were provided to the petitioner from time to time. He
denied that the petitioner did not abandon the job and he has given a phoney statement.
12. RW2 is Shri Gandhi Ram, Superintendent in the office of the Executive Engineer,
HPPWD Division, Salooni. He brought the record relating to the service conditions of the petitioner
and the despatch register as well as proved the documents Exs. RW2/A to F.
13. In the cross-examination, he admitted that no receipt is there in the record as the letters
were sent to the petitioner by Ordinary Dak. The postal receipt of the registered letter Ex. RW2/D
is also not there in the record.
14. Ex. R1 is the copy of the order dated 22.3.2007 passed by the Hon’ble Administrative
Tribunal in O.A. No.493/2000 titled as Shri Bhag Mal vs. the State of Himachal Pradesh and
others. Its perusal discloses that the original application was withdrawn by the petitioner with
liberty to seek the remedy before the appropriate Court/Forum.
15. Ex. RW1/A is the copy of the office order dated 27.1.1995. It corresponds to Ex.
PW1/C.
16. Ex. RW1/B is the mandays chart relating to the petitioner.
6089
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
17. Exts. RW1/C1 to C4 and Exts. RW1/D1 to D5 are the copies of the various office
orders issued by the respondent. Vide these office orders the term of appointment of the petitioner
and his companion Shri Hukam Singh (junior draftsman) was extended from time to time up-to
31.3.2001. Copies of these office orders were also endorsed to the petitioner.
18. Ex. RW1/E1 is the copy of the order dated August 1, 2006 pronounced by the Hon’ble
Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.493/2000. It clarifies that the original application preferred by
the applicant/petitioner was dismissed in default due to his non appearance.
19. Ex. RW1/E2 is the copy of the order dated 22.3.2007 passed by the Hon’ble
Administrative Tribunal in the above numbered original application. It corresponds to Ex. R1.
20. Ex. RW1/F is the provisional seniority list of the junior draftsmen as it stood on
31.3.2008 relating to the office of the respondent.
21. Ex. RW1/G1 is the copy of the office order dated 27.1.1995 with respect to the
appointment of Shri Hukam Singh as junior draftsman for one year on payment of the consolidated
monthly emoluments @ Rs.2600/- issued by the SE, HPPWD, Dalhousie.
22. Ex. RW1/G2 is the copy of the office order dated 31.5.2005 issued by the respondent.
It unfolds that the services of Shri Hukam Singh (junior draftsman) were regularized.
23. Ex. RW2/A to C are the copies of the despatch registers of the office of the respondent.
They reveal that the office orders regarding the extension of term of the petitioner were forwarded
to him by the office of the Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Salooni from time to time after 30.9.1999.
24. Ex. RW2/D is the copy of the letter dated 01.2.2001 which was sent under registered
cover by the Executive Engineer, HPPWD Salooni Division to the petitioner. As per this letter, the
Executive Engineer requested the petitioner to attend to his duties in view of the extensions
received from the head office and conveyed to him (petitioner). The contents of this letter depict
that the Executive Engineer had requested the petitioner to resume the work since he (petitioner)
was willfully absent from government duty.
25. Ex. RW2/E is the copy of the office order dated 10.9.2010. It clarifies that Shri Tara
Singh was appointed as junior draftsman on contract basis pursuant to his selection as such by the
Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Board, Hamirpur.
26. Ex. RW2/F is the copy of the joining report dated 27.9.2010 submitted by Shri Tara
Singh in the office of the Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Division Salooni.
27. This is the total evidence on the record.
28. It is the admitted case of the parties that the services of the petitioner were initially
engaged for one year as junior draftsman on contract basis on payment of the consolidated monthly
emoluments of Rs.2600/- to him per office order dated 27.1.1995, the copies of which are Ex.
PW1/C and RW1/A. There is no denial of the fact that the term of the appointment of the petitioner
on contractual basis was extended from time to time up-to 31.3.2001 and he served the
respondent/department only up-to 30.9.1999. Admittedly, the petitioner and Shri Hukam Singh
were appointed as junior draftsmen by the respondent on the same terms and conditions on one date
i.e. 27.1.1995. Only one/joint sanction with regard to the extension of their services used to be
received from the competent authority. Shri Hukam Singh continued serving the
respondent/department even after 30.9.1999.
6090
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
29. The version of the petitioner is that his services were terminated by the respondent
w.e.f. 01.10.1999 by a verbal order. While denying the said fact, the respondent has pleaded that
the petitioner abandoned the job of his own because of which he is not entitled to the re-
employment or any protection under the Act.
30. To my mind, the act and conduct of the petitioner coupled with the evidence available
on the record go to show that he (petitioner) had infact left the job of his own accord and free
volition. As already mentioned, the term of appointment of the petitioner and Shri Hukam Singh on
contract basis was extended time and again by the respondent up-to 31.3.2001. Only one office
order used to be issued by the respondent regarding the extension of the period of service of the
petitioner and Shri Hukam Singh. Since the period of contractual appointment of the petitioner was
extended time and again up-to 31.3.2001, in my considered opinion, there was no reason or
occasion for the Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Salooni to verbally ask the petitioner on 30.9.1999
not to attend the office in future. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Executive Engineer had
some enmity with him or wanted to adjust someone else in his (petitioner’s) place. Therefore, it
does not appeal to a reasonable mind that the Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Salooni will verbally
ask the petitioner on 30.9.1999 not to attend the office in future, particularly when the petitioner
was appointed by his (Executive Engineer’s) superior i.e. the SE, HPPWD and the extensions were
being accorded by him (SE, HPPWD) from time to time.
31. The copies of the various office orders have been exhibited on the file as Exts.
RW1/C1 to C4 and Exts. RW1/D1 to D5. Their perusal unfolds that the office orders were also
duly forwarded to the petitioner for his information and strict compliance. The fact that the copies
of the office orders were sent to the petitioner from time to time bringing to his notice that the
terms of his engagement stands extended also finds support from Exts. RW2/A to C, the copies of
the despatch registers. Not only this, the copy of a letter dated 01.2.2001 (Ex. RW2/D) is there on
the record. It shows that the said letter was sent to the petitioner by the Executive Engineer,
HPPWD, Salooni under registered cover. As per this letter the Executive Engineer requested the
petitioner to attend to his duties in view of the extensions received from the head office since he
(petitioner) was willfully absent from Government duty. The assertion of the petitioner that the
copies of the office orders conveying the extension or the letter Ex. RW2/D were not received by
him does not appear to be true since as per Section 114 (e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, all
official acts are presumed to be regularly performed. Even a letter posted at the correct address is
presumed to have reached its destination till proved otherwise. Moreover, the office orders on
which the endorsements were made regarding sending their copies to the petitioner and the
despatch registers the copies of which are Exts. RW2/A to C saw the light of the day when no
dispute was there between the parties. For this reason, the evidence adduced by the respondent has
great evidentiary value. At the cost of reiteration, I will like to add that it is not the case of the
petitioner that the SE, HPPWD or the Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division, Salooni were
inimical to him or wanted to adjust someone else in his place. Further, it is not the case of the
petitioner that the record produced by the respondent is forged and fabricated.
32. At the time of the cross-examination of Shri A.K. Abrol (RW1) a question was put in
the suggestive form to him by the ld. AR for the petitioner which reads thus:–
^^;g Bhd gS fd tc oknh us dke NksM+k rks mls dke ij okfil vkus ckjs dksbZ Notice u
fn;k x;k Fkk**
This admission on the part of the petitioner goes to show that he had left the service
voluntarily.
33. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has pleaded that various representations were made by
him to the respondent time and again but he was not allowed to join the duties. The copies of the
representations, if any, have not been placed on the record. Since material evidence/documents
6091
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
have been withheld by the petitioner, an adverse inference under Section 114 (g) of the Indian
Evidence Act has to be drawn against him. Otherwise also if the petitioner was not allowed to join
the duties by the Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Salooni (as alleged) then why he (petitioner) did
not submit his joining report in writing in the office of the Executive Engineer or the office of the
SE, HPPWD being the appointing authority? The reasons to that effect being obscure go to show
that the petitioner is telling nothing else except bundle of lies.
34. The alleged termination order dated 01.10.1999 was challenged by the petitioner
before the erstwhile Hon’ble Administrative Tribunal by instituting original application
No.493/2000. Such application was initially dismissed in default on August 1, 2006 by the Hon’ble
Administrative Tribunal as is evident from the copy of the order Ex. RW1/E1. Subsequently, the
petitioner got the original application restored and the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order
dated 22.3.2007 (Ex.RW1/E2) with liberty to seek remedy before the appropriate Court/Forum.
After the withdrawal of the original application, the industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner
per demand notice dated 13.8.2010, the copy of which is Ex. R2. There is nothing on the file to
suggest as to why the petitioner remained tight lipped and complacent about his rights for more
than three years after the withdrawal of the original application from the Hon’ble Administrative
Tribunal. Acute delay in raking up the industrial dispute by the petitioner also speaks volumes
about his truthfulness and veracity.
35. There is satiable evidence on the file to show that the petitioner abandoned the job of
his own accord and free volition. He did not join his duties inspite of the intimations sent to him
time and again. It appears to me that the present industrial dispute has been raised by the petitioner
at a belated stage to derive the undue benefit of regularization of his services etc. since the services
of his companion Shri Hukam Singh have already been regularized. The avarice of the petitioner to
grab the government job and money has forced him to prefer a totally false and baseless claim.
36. As the petitioner had abandoned the job, he is not entitled to any protection under the
Act. The claim petition instituted by him is not maintainable. He is not entitled to any relief.
37. These issues are decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent.
Issue no. 3
38. Not pressed.
Relief (issue no. 4)
39. As a sequel to my findings on the issues No.1 and 2, the instant claim petition being
meritless not maintainable and malafide fails. It is, therefore, dismissed with costs quantified as
Rs.3000/-.
40. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
41. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the
official gazette.
42. File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.Announced in the open
Court today this 3rd day of September, 2012.
RAJAN GUPTA,
Presiding Judge,
Labour Court-cum-Industrial
Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P.
6092
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
IN THE COURT OF RAJAN GUPTA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR
COURT-CUM-INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.
Ref No. : 493/2009
Date of Institution : 20.11.2009
Date of Decision : 03.9.2012
Shri Daulat Ram s/o Shri Singh Ram, r/o Village Sulancha, P.O. Bhanjraru, Tehsil Churah,
Distt. Chamba, H.P.
. . Petitioner.
Versus
The Block Development Officer, Tissa, Distt. Chamba, 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, Dy. D. A.
AWARD
The below given reference has been received from the appropriate Government for
adjudication:
“Whether termination of the services of Sh. Daulat Ram s/o Shri Singh Ram by the
Block Development Officer, Tissa, Distt. Chamba w.e.f. 01.11.2007 without
complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is proper and justified?
If not, what relief of service benefits the above aggrieved workman is entitled to?”
2. The case of the petitioner (as set out in the statement of claim/demand) is that his
services were engaged by the respondent as a daily wager on 15th May, 2004. He worked
continuously for 1200 days up-to 01.11.2007. On the said date, his services were terminated by the
respondent by a verbal order. On 5th February, 2010 a new workman namely Shri Ramesh Kumar
s/o Sh. Moti Ram, Village Sulana, P.O. Bhanjraru, Tehsil Churah, Distt. Chamba, H.P. has been
appointed by the respondent. On 15th February, 2010, he (petitioner) met the respondent for re-
engagement. The latter remarked that he is paying the wages to him (petitioner) from his own
pocket as no sanction has been received from the Government.
As such, he (petitioner) prays that the justice be done by ordering his re-engagement etc.
3. On notice, the respondent appeared. He filed detailed reply controverting the
averments made in the petition/statement of claim. Preliminary objections have been raised to the
effect that the claim petition is not maintainable since no legal or fundamental right of the petitioner
has been infringed. The petition is bad on account of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner.
On merits, it has been pleaded that the office of BDO, Tissa (respondent) was gutted in a
fire incident which took place on 28.2.2010. Resultantly, the entire record of the office was
destroyed. An FIR in this regard was got registered. He (respondent) has reconstructed the record
relating to service conditions of the petitioner from various offices. As per the record, the services
of the petitioner were initially engaged as a contingent paid part time sweeper for two hours w.e.f.
May, 2004 @ Rs.8-10 per hour vide sanction No. RDD-II. B (1) 5.83, dated 19th April, 2004. The
6093
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
engagement of the part time sweeper as per the sanction orders was subject to the condition that the
appointment shall be coterminous with the appointment and joining of a regular employee. The
petitioner was duly made aware of the said condition of engagement at the time of his employment.
The engagement of the petitioner as per the sanction orders of contingent paid worker continued
up-to 4th October, 2007. On that date i.e. 04.10.2007 one Smt. Hansi Devi d/o Shri Jai Sain joined
his (respondent’s) office as Sweeper-cum-Chowkidar pursuant to the office order No.
RDD.11.B(15)3/06-1712-1722, dated 26th September, 2007 issued by the Director, Department of
Rural Development, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. After the joining of a regular employee (Smt.
Hansi Devi) no work was available with him (respondent) to continue with the engagement of the
petitioner. Since the record has been destroyed, he (respondent) is not in a position to submit the
actual mandays relating to the petitioner. Shri Ramesh Kumar s/o Shri Moti Ram has not been
engaged by him (respondent) on account of any budgetary provision. The payment is being made to
him after collecting the money from the employees of the office. Shri Ramesh Kumar has been kept
by the employees of the office for small errands which he performs for them. The petition is
meritless.
In these circumstances, the respondent prays that the petition in hand be dismissed.
4. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has reiterated the contents of the petition/statement of
claim and refuted the objections put forth by the respondent. It has been pleaded that at the time of
engaging his services as a contingent paid worker no appointment letter was issued in his name by
the respondent. He was engaged by the respondent for eight hours daily and continuously worked
up-to 31.10.2007. The State Government has enhanced the working hours of part time employees
from 2 to 4 hours in the year 1999. Therefore, the assertion of the respondent that the services of
the petitioner were engaged as a part time sweeper only for two hours daily is wrong. From the date
of his initial engagement to 31.10.2007, he (petitioner) discharged the duties eight hours per day.
However, he was paid the wages for only two hours daily. He is entitled to the balance wages as
per the minimum wages fixed by the Government from time to time. No terms and conditions of
appointment were settled at the time of his engagement. It was not conveyed to him that with the
appointment of a regular employee his services will stand automatically terminated. He worked
with the respondent from 15.5.2004 to 31.10.2007 without any break. He had completed more than
240 days of work in each and every calendar year of his engagement as well as in a block of 12
calendar months preceding the date of his termination i.e. 01.11.2007. At the time of termination of
his services no show cause notice was served upon him. Neither he was charge-sheeted nor he was
informed about the misconduct if any. One month pay in lieu of the notice period and retrenchment
compensation as per Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the Act’ for short) were
not paid to him. At the time of the engagement of Sh. Ramesh Kumar an opportunity of re-
employment was not afforded to him (petitioner) as per Section 25-H of the Act. The respondent
has not submitted the seniority list of part time workers. The Government had given the sanction to
engage contingent paid workers including him (petitioner) from 01.3.2007 to 28.2.2008. Despite
this fact, his services were unlawfully terminated w.e.f. 01.11.2007 in violation of the principles of
natural justice.
5. Per order dated 24/10/2011, following issues were struck by my ld. Predecessor:-
1. Whether the disengagement of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.11.2007 is violative of the
provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, including Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H
thereof as alleged. If so, to what relief the petitioner is entitled to?
. .OPP.
2. Whether the reference is not maintainable as alleged. If so, to what effect?. . OPR.
3. Whether the reference is hit by the vice of delay and laches as alleged. If so, to
what effect?
. .OPR.
4. Relief.
6094
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
6. I have heard the ld. counsel/AR for the parties and have gone through the case file.
7. For the reasons detailed here under, my findings on the above issues are as follows:-
Issue No. 1 : No
Issue No. 2 : Yes
Issue No. 3 : Not pressed
Relief. : Claim petition dismissed vide operative portion of the Award.
Reasons for findings
Issues No. 1 and 2
8. Being interlinked and to avoid the repetition, both these issues are taken up together
for discussion and disposal.
9. The petitioner Shri Daulat Ram stepped into the witness box as PW1.
In his affidavit Ex. PW1/A submitted under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, he reiterated on oath the
contents of the petition/statement of claim in its entirety.
In the cross-examination, he admitted that the office of the respondent was destroyed in a
fire which took place in the month of February, 2010. He denied that his services were engaged as a
contingent paid worker for two hours daily for the cleanliness work. He also denied that at the time
of his engagement, it was communicated to him that as and when a regular employee joins, his
services will be dispensed with. He admitted that in the month of September, 2007, Smt. Hansi
Devi joined as a regular sweeper-cum-chowkidar in the office of the respondent on her transfer. He
denied that after the joining of Smt. Hansi Devi no work of sweeper was available for him because
of which his services were disengaged. He cannot produce any record to show that he had worked
for more than two hours every day. He feigned ignorance about the fact that Shri Ramesh Kumar is
being paid the wages by the employees of the office of the respondent from their own pocket and
not from the state exchequer. He denied that he is not entitled to re-employment etc.
10. Conversely, Sh. Amit Mehra, Assistant Commissioner (Development), Tissa
(respondent) testified as RW1. He corroborated on oath the contents of the reply filed by him.
In the cross-examination, he admitted that the post of part time contingent paid safai
karamchari was sanctioned by the department in the month of April, 2004. He admitted that in the
sanction order Ex. RW1/B, it has no where been mentioned that the safai karamchari should be
engaged for 2 to 4 hours daily.
No appointment letter was issued in the name of the petitioner at the time of his
engagement. An affidavit was executed by the petitioner in his (respondent’s) favour at the time of
joining the service. He (RW1) has not brought that affidavit to the Court as the record has been
destroyed. When the services of the petitioner were engaged, the terms and conditions of
appointment were conveyed to him. Those terms and conditions were incorporated in the affidavit
executed by the petitioner. He admitted that up-to the year 2007, the petitioner served only as a
contingent paid/temporary worker. Self stated, a different selection process is adopted for
appointment of a person against the permanent post. Smt. Hansi Devi has been transferred.
6095
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
Presently, the post of safai karamchari in his (RW1’s) office is lying vacant. He does not know that
the petitioner served regularly from 15.5.2004 to 31.10.2007. He is not aware of the fact as to
whether any notice was served upon the petitioner or not before his disengagement. He denied that
the services of the petitioner were terminated in a wrongful manner and he has given a phoney
statement.
11. Ex. RW1/A is the copy of the FIR No.21 of 2010 dated 1st March, 2010, which was
registered in Police Station, Tissa. It discloses that the office of the respondent and the record were
destroyed in the fire.
12. Exts. RW1/B to E are the copies of various office orders issued by the Dy. Secretary,
Rural Development , Government of Himachal Pradesh. As per these orders sanction was conveyed
for appointment of a contingent paid/temporary sweeper in the office of the respondent from time
to time i.e. 01.3.2004 to 28.2.2005, 01.3.2005 to 28.2.2006, 01.3.2006 to 28.2.2007 and 01.3.2007
to 28.2.2008.
13. Ex. RW1/F is the copy of the demand notice dated 19.5.2008 served by the petitioner
upon the respondent.
14. Ex. RW1/G is the copy of the office order dated 9th September, 2007 issued by the
Director, Rural Development Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. It unfolds
that Smt. Hansi Devi was appointed as sweeper-cumchowkidar on regular basis pursuant to her
transfer from Drang block to Tissa block.
15. Ex. RW1/H is the copy of the letter dated 4th October, 2007 written by the respondent
to the Director, Rural Development Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. Vide
this letter the respondent conveyed to the Director that Smt. Hansi Devi joined in his (respondent’s)
office as sweeper-cum-chowkidar on 03.10.2007 in the forenoon.
16. There is no denial of the fact that the services of the petitioner were engaged as a
contingent paid part time sweeper by the respondent w.e.f. 15th May, 2004 and he worked
continuously up-to 31.10.2007. The version of the petitioner that he used to work for four or 8
hours daily does not appear to be true as the same is not supported by any documentary evidence.
17. Perusal of the office orders, the copies of which are Exts. RW1/B to E clarifies that the
sanction was accorded by his Excellency the Governor of Himachal Pradesh to engage a contingent
paid part time sweeper in the office of the respondent from time to time i.e. 01.3.2004 to 28.2.2008.
In the sanction orders, it was clearly mentioned that as and when the post is filled on the joining of
a regular employee, the services of the contingent paid part time sweeper will come to an end
automatically. The terms and conditions of appointment will be communicated to the contingent
paid part time sweeper. It has come in the statement of the respondent (RW1) that as per the
practice the terms and conditions of employment as per the office orders, were duly conveyed to
the petitioner. The latter even furnished an affidavit to that effect in favour of the respondent. The
terms and conditions of appointment were duly incorporated in the affidavit sworn by the
petitioner.
18. The evidence available on the record clarifies that Smt. Hansi Devi a regular employee
was posted as sweeper-cum-chowkidar in the office of the respondent. She joined the office of the
respondent on 03.10.2007 in the forenoon, whereafter, the services of the petitioner were dispensed
with as no work was available for him.
6096
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
19. Taking into account the terms and conditions of the appointment as contained in the
office orders Exts. RW1/B to E, I am at a loss to understand as to how and on what basis the
petitioner is claiming that his services were engaged as a daily wager by the respondent. Even if,
the post of the safai karamchari is lying vacant at present in the office of the respondent, he cannot
be directed to re-engage the petitioner for the simple reason that the sanction of the competent
authority is required to incur the expenditure from the State Exchequer which is not available.
20. It has come in the statement of the respondent (RW1) that for the appointment of a
regular employee, selection process has to be followed. The petitioner cannot be appointed against
a regular post without undergoing the said procedure/process.
21. It is not the case of the petitioner that any person junior to him has been retained in
service by the respondent. So far as Sh. Ramesh Kumar s/o Sh. Moti Ram is concerned he is not an
employee in the office of the respondent.
22. To my mind, the services of the petitioner were engaged as a contingent paid part time
sweeper by the respondent as per the sanction accorded by the competent authority from time to
time. He (petitioner) served the respondent as a stop-gap arrangement till the joining of the regular
employee. On the joining of the regular employee namely Smt. Hansi Devi, the services of the
petitioner automatically came to an end. Neither the petitioner is entitled to any protection under
the Act nor the claim petition preferred by him is maintainable. The claim put forth by the
petitioner is fallacious. No provision of the Act has been violated by the respondent. The petitioner
is not entitled to any relief.
23. These issues are decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent.
Issue No. 3
24. Not pressed.
Relief (Issue No. 4)
25. As a sequel to my findings on the above issues, the instant claim petition being
meritless and not maintainable fails. It is, therefore, dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
26. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
27. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the
official gazette.
28. File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open Court today this 3rd day of September, 2012.
RAJAN GUPTA,
Presiding Judge,
Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal,
Dharamshala, H.P.
6097
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
IN THE COURT OF RAJAN GUPTA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR
COURT-CUM-INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.
Ref No. : 499/2009
Date of Institution : 20.11.2009
Date of Decision : 01.8.2012
Shri Kailash Chand s/o Shri Rijhu Ram, r/o Village & P.O. Dradha, Tehsil & Distt.
Chamba, H.P.
. . Petitioner.
Versus
The Executive Engineer, IPH Division, Dalhousie, Distt. 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, Dy. D.A.
AWARD
The below given reference has been received from the appropriate Government for
adjudication:
“Whether termination of the services of Sh. Kailash Chand s/o Shri Rijhu Ram by The
Executive Engineer, IPH Division, Dalhousie, Distt. Chamba, H.P. w.e.f. 26.11.2000
as alleged by worker, is proper and justified? If not, what amount of back wages,
seniority, past service benefits and compensation the aggrieved workman is entitled
to?”
2. The case of the petitioner (as set out in the statement of claim/demand) is that his
services were engaged as a daily waged mason by the respondent in the month of January, 1996.
He worked continuously as such under the respondent till 30th June, 1998 in I. & P.H. Sub
Division, Banikhet, Division Dalhousie. He had completed more than 240 days of work in each and
every calendar year of his employment. On 1st July, 1998, his services were illegally terminated by
the respondent by passing a verbal order. He filed O.A. No.590/1999 before the Hon’ble Himachal
Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Dharamshala Bench against the order of termination dated
1st July, 1998. Interim order dated 23.3.2000 was passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal directing the
respondent to reengage him (petitioner). He was, accordingly, re-engaged by the respondent in the
month of May, 2000 and worked continuously up-to the middle of November, 2000. During the
pendency of O.A. No.590/1999 before the Hon’ble Tribunal, his services were once again
terminated by the respondent in the middle of November, 2000 by a verbal order. Per order dated
18.3.2002, the original application was dismissed as withdrawn by the Hon’ble Tribunal with the
direction to raise the dispute in the appropriate Court/Forum under the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (‘the Act’ for short). After passing of such order by the Hon’ble Tribunal, he (petitioner)
raised the industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, Chamba through demand notice dated
17.7.2003. At the time of termination of his services on 01.7.1998 and, thereafter, in the middle of
November, 2000, the persons junior to him were retained in service by the respondent. Neither any
notice was served upon him (petitioner) nor the wages in lieu of the notice period were paid to him.
Even no retrenchment compensation was paid. He (petitioner) never absented from work. During
the period of his employment the respondent used to give him the fictional breaks so that he does
not complete 240 days of work in a calendar year. The period in which he was not provided the
6098
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
work by the respondent is required to be counted for the calculation of 240 days continuous service
in each calendar year. The respondent has failed to adhere to the principle of ‘last come first go’
New/fresh hands were engaged by the respondent. At the time of engaging the new workmen, an
opportunity of re-employment was not given to him. He has spotless service record. He remained
out of the service from 01.7.1998 to April, 2000. Now from November, 2000 till date, he is
unemployed. The act and conduct of the respondent is malafide, illegal and unjustified. The same is
also violative of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act.
As such, as is apparent from the prayer clause of the petition/statement of claim, the
petitioner has claimed the following relief(s) in this case.
“(I) The oral orders of retrenchment/termination of my services passed by the respondent
w.e.f. 01.7.1998 at first time and w.e.f. mid of Nov., 2000 be set-aside being illegal,
arbitrary and unjustified.
(II) To direct the respondent to reinstate the services of petitioner with full back wages,
seniority including continuity of services as the petitioner remained unemployed since
the date of illegal retrenchment/termination of services.
(III) To direct the respondent for the production of original record pertaining to the case of
petitioner.
(IV) To direct the respondent to re-engage petitioner on Muster Roll basis pending final
decision of the case.
(V) Any other relief as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit”.
3. On notice, the respondent appeared. He filed detailed reply controverting the
averments made in the petition/statement of claim. Preliminary objections have been taken to the
effect that the claim petition is not maintainable since no legal or fundamental right of the petitioner
has been infringed. The petition is bad on account of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner.
He is estopped from preferring the claim petition by his act and conduct.
On merits, it has been owned that the services of the petitioner were initially engaged as a
daily rated mason in the month of January, 1996. He worked for 254 days in the year 1996, 239 ½
days in the year 1997, 135 days in the year 1998 and 196 days in the year 2000. Mandays chart of
the petitioner is annexed as annexure R-I to the reply. The services of the petitioner were never
terminated as alleged. Actually, in the month of June, 1998, the petitioner abandoned the job of his
own despite the fact that the work was available. He did not bother to resume the duties in spite of
the fact that the Junior Engineer, Irrigation and Public Health, Section Bathri directed him vide
letter dated 08.7.1998 to join the duties. Assistant Engineer, I. & P.H. Sub Division, Banikhet also
directed the petitioner per letter dated 11.7.1998 to resume the work, but in vain. The petitioner did
not report for duty. His conduct shows that neither he was interested to work nor he was in need of
a job. The work on which the petitioner was deployed was delayed as he did not report for duty. He
is not entitled to any protection under the Act. No provision of the Act has been infringed.
Presently, no work and funds are available for the petitioner. Since the petitioner left the service of
his own, he is not entitled to the re-employment etc. No fictional breaks were ever given to the
petitioner. As the petitioner voluntarily abandoned the job, he is debarred from claiming parity with
the workmen who worked with him (respondent) continuously. No person junior to the petitioner
has been retained in service. Even no new/fresh hands have been engaged. The petitioner is
gainfully employed as a private mason after he left the service. The petition is meritless.
In these circumstances, the respondent prays that the petition in hand be dismissed.
4. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has reiterated the contents of the petition/statement of
claim and refuted the objections put forth by the respondent. It has been maintained that the persons
6099
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
junior to him are serving the respondent/department. Their names are S/Sh. Gula Ram, Karam
Chand and Amar Singh etc. he never abandoned the job. Artificial breaks used to be given to him
by the respondent so that he does not complete 240 days of work.
5. Vide order dated 03.6.2011, following issues were struck by my ld. Predecessor:-
1. Whether the termination of the petitioner w.e.f. 26.11.2000 is violative of the
provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act as
alleged. If so, to what relief the petitioner is entitled to?
. .OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner was being given fictional breaks as alleged. If so, to what
effect?
. . OPP.
3. Whether the reference is not maintainable as alleged. If so, to what effect?. . OPR.
4. Whether the reference is hit by the vice of delay and laches as alleged. If so, to
what effect?
. . OPR.
5. Relief.
6. I have heard the ld. counsel/AR for the parties and have gone through the case file.
7. For the reasons detailed here under, my findings on the above issues are as follows:-
Issue No. 1 : Partly Yes Partly No
Issue No. 2 : Not pressed
Issue No. 3 : Not pressed
Issue No. 4 : No
Relief. : Claim petition allowed in part vide operative portion of the Award.
Reasons for findings
Issue No. 1
8. The petitioner Shri Kailash Chand stepped into the witness box as PW1. In his
affidavit Ex. PW1/A submitted under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, he reiterated on oath the contents of
the petition/statement of claim in its entirety.
In the cross-examination, he denied that he left the service of his own in the year 1998 and
thereafter in the year 2000. He also denied that the notices were sent to him by the department
calling upon him to resume the duties. Notices Marks D1 and D2 were never received by him. He
denied that he has given a phoney statement.
9. Conversely, Sh. Sunil Dutt Chaudhary, Executive Engineer, I&PH, Dalhousie
(respondent) testified as RW1. He corroborated on oath the contents of the reply filed by him.
In the cross-examination, he admitted that no notice was served upon the petitioner
regarding his willful absence from duty w.e.f. 26.11.2000. He also admitted that neither any notice
was given to the petitioner nor the retrenchment compensation was paid to him. In the seniority list
Ex. RW1/D the name of the petitioner figures at serial No.41. He admitted that S/Sh. Surinder,
Gandho Ram, Amar Singh, Karam Chand and Gula Ram are junior to the petitioner. The petitioner
is D-Class contractor.
6100
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
10. Mark-A is the copy of the interim order dated 23.3.2K passed by the Hon’ble
Administrative Tribunal in O.A. (D) No. 590/1999 instituted by the petitioner against the
respondent.
11. Mark-B is the copy of joining report dated 29.3.2000 submitted by the petitioner
pursuant to the order dated 23.3.2000 (Mark-A) pronounced by the Hon’ble Tribunal.
12. Mark-C is the copy of the demand notice dated 17.7.2003 served by the petitioner
under Section 2-A of the Act.
13. Ex. RW1/A is the mandays chart relating to the petitioner.
14. Ex. RW1/B (previously Mark-D1) is the copy of the notice allegedly sent by the Junior
Engineer to the petitioner calling upon him to resume the duties.
15. Ex. RW1/C (earlier Mark-D2) is the copy of the notice dated 11.7.1998 sent by the
Assistant Engineer to the petitioner for resuming the work.
16. Ex. RW1/D is the seniority list of the daily waged mason in respect of I&PH Division,
Dalhousie, as on 31.12.2000.
17. Ex. D1 is the copy of an office order issued by the respondent evidencing that the
petitioner has been enlisted as Class “D” Contractor.
18. Ex. D2 is the copy of the letter dated 17th September, 2010 written by the Engineer-in-
Chief, I&PH Department, Shimla to all the Chief Engineer/Superintending Engineers etc. of I&PH
Department in Himachal Pradesh regarding the revision of rates of wages of daily waged workers
and the workers engaged on part time basis.
19. No reference has been received from the appropriate Government regarding the alleged
termination of the services of the petitioner by the respondent on 1st July, 1998 and providing the
fictional breaks, if any, to the petitioner. Therefore, these controversies between the parties cannot
be looked into by this Court being beyond the terms of the reference.
20. It is the admitted case of the parties that the services of the petitioner were engaged as
a daily rated mason in the month of January, 1996. The respondent has maintained that the
petitioner worked intermittently as such up-to the month of November, 2000. The said fact finds
support from the mandays chart Ex. RW1/A.
21. The version of the petitioner is that his services were terminated by the respondent
wrongly and illegally w.e.f. 26.11.2000. While denying the said fact the respondent has pleaded
that the petitioner left the service of his own accord and free volition. It is common knowledge that
the abandonment has to be proved like any other fact by the respondent/employer. Simply because
a workman fails to report for duty, it cannot be presumed that he has left/abandoned the job. The
respondent (RW1) in his cross-examination admitted that no notice was sent to the petitioner
regarding his willful absence from duty on 26.11.2000 and thereafter. There is nothing on the
record to show that after 26.11.2000 any notice was given to the petitioner by the respondent
calling upon him to resume the work. Absence from duties is serious misconduct. There is nothing
on the file to show that some disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner by the
respondent for his alleged willful absence from duty. The plea of abandonment put forth by the
respondent is not established.
6101
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
22. It is not the case of the petitioner that the mandays chart (Ex. RW1/A) produced by the
respondent is incorrect. Its perusal discloses that the petitioner did not complete 240 days of work
in a block of 12 calendar months preceding the date of his termination as envisaged under Section
25-B of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are not attracted in this case.
23. The respondent (RW1) in his cross-examination admitted that the persons junior to the
petitioner namely Sh. Surinder etc. are working with him. The said fact finds corroboration from
the seniority list Ex. RW1/D. This indicates that the respondent has failed to follow the principle of
‘last come first go’. His action contravenes the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act. For the said
reason, the disengagement of the petitioner is illegal and unjustified. Needless to say that for
deriving the benefit under Section 25-G of the Act, a workman need not complete 240 days of work
in a block of 12 calendar months preceding the date/month of his termination.
24. There is nothing on the record to show that after the termination of the services of the
petitioner, new/fresh hands were engaged by the respondent. The provisions of Section 25-H of the
Act are also not attracted in this case.
25. This issue is decided accordingly.
Issue No. 2
26. This issue has not been pressed by the ld. counsel for the petitioner as providing the
fictional breaks, if any, to his client by the respondent is not a term of the reference.
27. The issue has been answered as such.
Issue No. 3
28. Not pressed.
Issue No. 4
29. In Ajayab Singh vs. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Limited
and Another, (1999) 6 SCC 82, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that:
“The provisions of Article 137 of Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the
proceeding under the ID Act. The relief under the ID Act cannot be denied merely on
the ground of delay. The 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 merely
hypothetical defence. No reference to the Labour Court can be generally questioned on
the ground of delay alone”.
30. In view of the trite laid down in this ruling, it cannot be said that the petition is hit by
the vice of delay and laches. Of course, the delay in raising the industrial dispute by a workman can
be taken into account by the Court while granting him the relief(s) claimed.
31. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a mason. From Ex. D1 i.e. the copy of the
office order issued by the respondent, it can be gathered that the petitioner is enlisted as a Class
“D” Contractor for Irrigation and Public Health Department. It does not appeal to a reasonable
mind that a young man like the petitioner will sit at home during the period he is/was out of the
service. The petitioner has failed to discharge the initial onus that during the period of his forced
idleness, he was not gainfully employed. He is, thus, not entitled to the back wages.
6102
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
32. This issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
Relief (Issue No. 5)
33. As a sequel to my findings on the various issues, the instant claim petition succeeds in
part and the same is partly allowed. The retrenchment of the petitioner is set aside and quashed.
The respondent is directed to re-engage the petitioner forthwith. He shall be entitled to the seniority
and continuity in service from the date of his illegal termination i.e. 26.11.2000 except back wages.
Parties to bear their own costs.
34. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
35. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the
official gazette.
36. File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open Court today this 1st day of August, 2012.
RAJAN GUPTA,
Presiding Judge,
Labour Court-cum-Industrial
Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P.
_________
IN THE COURT OF RAJAN GUPTA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR
COURT-CUM-INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DHARAMSHALA, H.P. (CAMP AT UNA)
Ref No. : 157/2011
Date of Institution : 17.12.2011
Date of Decision : 13.8.2012
Shri Yash Pal s/o Shri Prakash Chand, r/o Village Tayar, P.O. Khukhai, Tehsil Bangana,
Distt. Una, H.P.
. . Petitioner.
Versus
M/s. C&C Construction Company Ltd., VPO Samoor Kalan, Distt. Una, H.P. . .Respondent.
Reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For the Petitioner :
Sh. S. S. Sippy, AR
For the Respondent : Already exparte
AWARD
The below given reference has been received from the appropriate Government for
adjudication:
“Whether termination of the services of Sh. Yash Pal s/o Sh. Prakash Chand,
Supervisor, who was drawing Rs.3500/- per month, r/o Village Tayar, P.O. Khukhai,
6103
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
Tehsil Bangana, Distt. Una, (H.P.) by the management of M/s C&C Construction
Company Ltd. VPO Samoor Kalan, Distt. Una, H.P. without issuing any charge sheet,
without conducting enquiry and without following the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, is proper and justified? If not, to what back wages, service benefits
and relief the above named workman is entitled to?”
2. The case of the petitioner (as set out in the statement of claim/demand) is that his
services were engaged by the respondent as a Munshi/Supervisor on 08.10.2008 on payment of
Rs.3500/- per month as wages. He worked continuously as such up-to 02.02.2010. On 3rd
February, 2010, his services were terminated by the respondent by a verbal order. Neither any show
cause notice was given to him nor he was informed about his misconduct, if any. The respondent is
the registered company dealing in the construction work. Presently more than 400 persons are
working in the company. The respondent has not prepared the seniority list of its workers. His
(petitioner’s) name has not been incorporated in the seniority list by the respondent which amounts
to unfair labour practice. The respondent has failed to adhere to the principle of ‘last come first go’.
His services have been disengaged by the respondent wrongly and illegally in contravention of the
provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the Act’ for short). He
(petitioner) served a demand notice dated 5th February, 2010 upon the respondent, but in vain.
From the date of his retrenchment, he is unemployed.
As such, he (petitioner) prays that the respondent be directed to reinstate him in service with
all consequential benefits including the seniority, continuity in service and payment of back wages
etc.
3. On notice, since the respondent did not appear despite service/knowledge, it was
proceeded against exparte by my ld. Predecessor vide order dated January 23, 2012.
4. The petitioner Shri Yash Pal stepped into the dock as PW1. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/A
submitted under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, he reiterated on oath the contents of the petition/statement
of claim in its entirety.
5. The deposition made by the petitioner (PW1) goes un-rebutted and unchallenged on
the record. From the statement made by PW1, it can be gathered that he had served the respondent
for a period of more than 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months preceding the date of his
termination.
5A. Section 25-F of the Act postulate s as under:-
“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.”
6104
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
6. There is nothing on the record to show that before the termination of the services of the
petitioner, the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were complied with by the
respondent. Therefore, it can be easily said that the disengagement of the petitioner is illegal and
unjustified.
7. So far as the payment of back wages is concerned, the petitioner while testifying in the
Court as PW1 has given his age as 30 years. It is common knowledge that a young man like the
petitioner will not sit at home during the period he is/was out of the service. The petitioner has
failed to discharge the initial onus that during the period of his forced idleness, he was not gainfully
employed. He is, thus, not entitled to the back wages.
8. That being so, the instant claim petition succeeds in part and the same is partly allowed
exparte. The retrenchment of the petitioner is set aside and quashed. The respondent is directed to
re-engage the petitioner forthwith. He shall be entitled to the seniority and continuity in service
from the date of his illegal termination i.e. 3rd February, 2010 except back wages. Parties to bear
their own costs.
9. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
10. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the
official gazette.
11. File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open Court today this 13th day of August, 2012.
RAJAN GUPTA,
Presiding Judge,
Labour Court-cum-Industrial
Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P.
________
c vnkyr dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh ,oa fookg iathdj.k vf/kdkjh] lqtkuiqj] ftyk gehjiqj] fgekpy izns'k
Jh jkt dqekj iq= Jh tqYQh jke] oklh HkjaMw] Mk0 dusjM+] rglhy lqtkuiqj] ftyk gehjiqj
¼fg0 iz0½A
cuke
vke turk
fo"k;-& b'rgkj eqL=h equknh cjk, fookg iathdj.kA
Jh jkt dqekj iq= Jh tqYQh jke] oklh HkjaMw] Mk0 dusjM+ o nhfidk iq=h Jh lqjthr flag] Vhdk
vEcksVk] Mk0 jksiM+h] rglhy cM+lj] ftyk gehjiqj us vnkyr esa izkFkZuk&i= e; C;kukr gfYQ;k is'k
fd;s gaS fd fnukad 29&11&2011 dks fgUnw jhfr&fjokt ls fuoklh HkjaMw] Mk0 dusjM+] rglhy lqtkuiqj]
ftyk gehjiqj esa nksuksa dh 'kknh gqbZ gSA bl lUnHkZ esa nksuksa us 'kiFk&i= layXu djok, gSaA 'kknh
iathdj.k gsrq vkosnu fd;k gSA
vr% izkFkhZ dk izkFkZuk&i= Lohdkj djrs gq, bl b'rgkj eqL=h equknh vke turk dks lwfpr fd;k
tkrk gS fd ;fn fdlh O;fDr dks mDr fookg ckjs dksbZ ,rjkt gks rks og vlkyru ;k odkyru rkjh[k
6105
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
is'kh 4&2&2013 dks lqcg nl cts gkftj vnkyr gksdj viuk mtj is'k dj ldrk gSA ckn rkjh[k is'kh
fdlh fdLe dk mtj ,oa ,rjkt u lquk tkosxk o fookg iathdj.k izek.k&i= tkjh dj fn;k tk,xkA
;g b'rgkj eksgj vnkyr o esjs gLrk{kj lfgr vkt fnukad 7&1&2013 dks tkjh gqvkA
eksgjA
gLrk{kfjr@&
dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh ,oa fookg iathdj.k vf/kdkjh]
lqtkuiqj] ftyk gehjiqj] fgekpy izns'kA
&&&&&&&
c vnkyr dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh ,oa fookg iathdj.k vf/kdkjh] lqtkuiqj] ftyk gehjiqj] fgekpy izns'k
Jh lquhy dqekj iq= Jh izrki pUn] fuoklh ctjksy] Mk0 ctjksy] rglhy lqtkuiqj] ftyk
gehjiqj ¼fg0 iz0½A
cuke
vke turk
fo"k;-& b'rgkj eqL=h equknh cjk, fookg iathdj.kA
Jh lquhy dqekj iq= Jh izrki pUn] fuoklh ctjksy] Mk0 ctjksy] rglhy lqtkuiqj o vuhrk
nsoh iq=h Jh 'kksHkk jke] fuoklh Vhdk dqelq] Mk0 tVksyh] rglhy fujeaM] ftyk dqYyw us vnkyr esa
izkFkZuk&i= e; C;kukr gfYQ;k is'k fd;s gaS o vkosnu fd;k gS fd fnukad 1&12&2011 dks fgUnw
jhfr&fjokt ls fuoklh ctjksy] Mk0 ctjksy] rglhy lqtkuiqj] ftyk gehjiqj esa nksuksa dh 'kknh gqbZ gSA
bl lUnHkZ esa nksuksa us vius&vius 'kiFk&i= Hkh layXu djok, gSaA 'kknh iathdj.k gsrq vkosnu fd;k gSA
vr% izkFkhZ dk izkFkZuk&i= Lohdkj djrs gq, bl b'rgkj eqL=h equknh vke turk dks lwfpr fd;k
tkrk gS fd ;fn fdlh O;fDr dks mDr fookg ckjs dksbZ ,rjkt gks rks og vlkyru ;k odkyru rkjh[k
is'kh 23&1&2013 dks lqcg nl cts gkftj vnkyr gksdj viuk mtj is'k dj ldrk gSA ckn rkjh[k
is'kh fdlh fdLe dk mtj ,oa ,rjkt u lquk tkosxk o fookg iathdj.k izek.k&i= tkjh dj fn;k
tk,xkA
;g b'rgkj eksgj vnkyr o esjs gLrk{kj ls vkt fnukad 18&12&2012 dks gekjs tkjh gqvkA
eksgjA
gLrk{kfjr@&
dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh ,oa fookg iathdj.k vf/kdkjh]
lqtkuiqj] ftyk gehjiqj] fgekpy izns'kA
&&&&&&&
c vnkyr rglhynkj ,oa dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] lqtkuiqj] ftyk gehjiqj] fgekpy izns'k
Jh vuwi dqekj iq= Jh vej ukFk] fuoklh Vhdk iVykUnj] rglhy lqtkuiqj] ftyk gehjiqj]
fgekpy izns'kA
cuke
vke turk
6106
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
fo"k;-&&izkFkZuk&i= cjk, uke n:Lrh ckjs A
Jh vuwi dqekj iq= Jh vej ukFk] fuoklh Vhdk iVykUnj] rglhy lqtkuiqj] ftyk gehjiqj]
fgekpy izns'k us fnukad 3&1&2013 dks bl vnkyr esa ,d izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr djds vuqjks/k fd;k gS fd
mlds firk dk lgh uke iapk;r fjdkWMZ esa vej ukFk ntZ gS ijUrq dkxtkr eky Vhdk iVykUnj esa
dka'kh jke ntZ gS izkFkhZ dk dguk gS fd ;g nksuksa uke mlds firk ds gh gSaA izkFkhZ vc n#Lrh djokdj
vius firk dk uke jktLo fjdkWMZ esa dka'kh jke miuke vej ukFk ntZ djokuk pkgrk gSA
vr% bl b'rgkj eqL=h equknh }kjk vke turk dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd vxj fdlh dks
mijksDr uke dh n:Lrh ckjs fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks dksbZ mtj ,rjkt gks rks og vlkyru ;k odkyru
mifLFkr vkdj fnukad 4&2&2013 dks izkr% 10-00 cts viuk mtj is'k dj ldrk gS vU;Fkk xSj gktjh
dh lwjr esa ,drjQk dk;Zokgh vey esa ykbZ tk,xhA
vkt fnukad 7&1&2013 dks gekjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr ls tkjh gqvkA
eksgjA
gLrk{kfjr@&
rglhynkj ,oa dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh]
lqtkuiqj] ftyk gehjiqj] fgekpy izns'kA
&&&&&&
c vnkyr rglhynkj ,oa lgk;d lekgrkZ izFke Js.kh] lqtkuiqj] rglhy lqtkuiqj] ftyk gehjiqj]
fgekpy izns'k
eqdÌek uEcj % 12@2012
rkjh[k is'kh % 7&2&2013
Jh jes'k pUn iq= Jh rqylh jke] Vhdk vEc xkgjk] ekStk djksV] rglhy lqtkuiqj] ftyk
gehjiqj] fgekpy izns'k
- - izkFkÊA
cuke
1- deyk nsoh iRuh Lo0 Jh diwjk] 2- lykspuk nsoh iRuh Lo0 Jh vaxr jke] 3- Lusg yrk iq=h
vaxr jke] 4- lquhy dqekj iq= vaxr jke] 5- laxr jke iq= diwjk] 6- Qwyka nsoh iq=h diwjk]
7- fot; dqekj] 8- vt; dqekj iq=x.k dsgj flag] 9- izdk'kka nsoh iRuh Lo0 Jh dsgj flag] 10- vk'kk nsoh
iq=h dsgj flag] 11- vatw dqekjh iRuh Lo0 Jh izoh.k dqekj] oklh Vhdk vEc xkgjk] ekStk djksV] rglhy
lqtkuiqj] ftyk gehjiqj
- - QjhdnkseA
fo"k;-&&izkFkZuk&i= cjk, rdlhe vjkth [kkrk la[;k 2] [krkSuh la[;k 2] [kljk uEcjku 20] 21] 24]
fdÙkk 3] jdck rknknh 33 duky 8 ejyk fLFkr Vhdk vEc xkgjk] ekStk djksV] rglhy
lqtkuiqjA
izkFkÊ Jh jes'k pUn us mijksDr vjkth dh rdlhe ds fy, bl vnkyr esa ,d izkFkZuk&i= ns
j[kk gSA mijksDr Qjhdnkse 1 ls 6 dks bl vnkyr }kjk dbZ ckj leu tkjh fd, x, exj ;g mijksDr
Qjhdnkse ij lk/kkj.k rjhds ls leuksa dh rkehy gLc tkCrk u gks jgh gSA eqrkfcd rkehy dqfuUnk ;g
dgha nwljh txg fjgk;'k djrs gSaA izkFkÊ dk dguk gS fd mls mudk irk ekywe u gSA blfy, izkFkÊ us
xqtkfj'k dh gS fd mijksDr Qjhdnkse dks ctfj;k b'rgkj jkti= }kjk ryc fd;k tk,A bl b'rgkj
6107
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
jkti= }kjk mijksDr Qjhdnkse dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd vxj mUgsa mijksDr rdlhe ds ckjs dksbZ
mtj ;k ,rjkt gks rks og bl vnkyr esa vlkyru ;k odkyru fnukad 7&2&2013 dks lqcg 10-00 cts
bl vnkyr esa mifLFkr vk,a vU;Fkk xSj&gktjh dh lwjr esa ,drjQk dk;Zokgh vey esa ykbZ tkdj
vkxkeh dk;Zokgh dh tk,xhA
;g b'rgkj eksgj vnkyr o esjs gLrk{kj ls vkt fnukad 5&1&2013 dks tkjh gqvkA
eksgjA
gLrk{kfjr@&
rglhynkj ,oa lgk;d lekgrkZ izFke Js.kh]
lqtkuiqj] ftyk gehjiqj] fgekpy izns'kA
&&&&&&
c vnkyr rglhynkj ,oa lgk;d lekgrkZ izFke Js.kh] lqtkuiqj] rglhy lqtkuiqj] ftyk gehjiqj]
fgekpy izns'k
eqdÌek uEcj % 13@2012
rkjh[k is'kh % 7&2&2013
Jh jes'k pUn iq= Jh rqylh jke] Vhdk vEc xkgjk] ekStk djksV] rglhy lqtkuiqj] ftyk
gehjiqj] fgekpy izns'k
- - izkFkÊA
cuke
1- deyk nsoh iRuh Lo0 Jh diwjk] 2- eaxr jke iq= diwjk] 3- lykspuk nsoh iRuh Lo0
Jh vaxr jke] 4- Lusg yrk iq=h vaxr jke] 5- lquhy dqekj iq= vaxr jke] 6- laxr jke iq= diwjk]
7- Qwyka nsoh iq=h diwjk] 8- R;waxyh nsoh iRuh Lo0 Jh jke lju] oklh Vhdk vEc xkgjk] ekStk djksV]
rglhy lqtkuiqj] ftyk gehjiqj
- - QjhdnkseA
fo"k;-&&izkFkZuk&i= cjk, rdlhe vjkth [kkrk uEcj 1] [krkSuh uEcj 1] [kljk uEcjku 6] 9] 10] 15] 25]
fdÙkk 5] jdck rknknh 62 duky 10 ejyk fLFkr Vhdk vEc xkgjk] ekStk djksV] rglhy
lqtkuiqjA
izkFkÊ Jh jes'k pUn us mijksDr vjkth dh rdlhe ds fy, bl vnkyr esa ,d izkFkZuk&i= ns
j[kk gSA mijksDr Qjhdnkse dks bl vnkyr }kjk dbZ ckj leu tkjh fd, x, exj bu ij lk/kkj.k
rjhds ls leuksa dh rkehy gLc tkCrk u gks jgh gSA eqrkfcd fjiksVZ rkehy dqfuUnk ;g dgha nwljh txg
jgrs gSaA izkFkÊ dk dguk gS fd mls mudk irk ekywe u gSA blfy, mlus xqtkfj'k dh gS fd bUgsa
ctfj;k b'rgkj jkti= }kjk ryc fd;k tk,A bl dkj.k bl vnkyr dks Hkh fo'okl gks pqdk gS fd
mijksDr Qjhdnkse ij lk/kkj.k rjhds ls rkehy u gks ldrh gSA vr% mijksDr Qjhdnkse dks bl b'rgkj
jkti= }kjk lqfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd vxj mUgsa mijksDr rdlhe ds ckjs dksbZ ,rjkt gks rks og bl
vnkyr esa vlkyru ;k odkyru fnukad 7&2&2013 dks lqcg 10-00 cts mifLFkr vk,a vU;Fkk
xSj&gktjh dh lwjr esa ,drjQk dk;Zokgh vey esa ykbZ tkdj vkxkeh dk;Zokgh dh tk,xhA
;g b'rgkj eksgj vnkyr o esjs gLrk{kj ls vkt fnukad 5&1&2013 dks tkjh gqvkA
eksgjA
gLrk{kfjr@&
rglhynkj ,oa lgk;d lekgrkZ izFke Js.kh]
lqtkuiqj] ftyk gehjiqj] fgekpy izns'kA
6108
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
vnkyr Jh eukst dqekj] rglhynkj ,oa dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] rglhy /keZ'kkyk] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy
izns'k
eqdíek ua0 ---------------------
Jherh vUtq
cuke
vke turk
fo"k;-&&izkFkZuk&i= tsj /kkjk 13 ¼3½ tUe ,oa e`R;q iathdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1969-
uksfVl cuke vke turkA
Jherh vUtq iRuh Jh jkds'k dqekj, fuoklh flfoy cktkj] rglhy /keZ'kkyk] ftyk dkaxM+k us bl
vnkyr esa 'kiFk&i= lfgr eqdíek nk;j fd;k gS fd mlds iq= gjs"k dh tUe frfFk 24&6&2008 gS
ijUrq M. C. Dharamshala esa mDr rkjh[k iathd`r u gqbZ gSA vr% bls iathd`r fd;s tkus ds vkns'k fn;s
tk;saA bl uksfVl ds }kjk leLr turk dks rFkk lEcfU/kr fj'rsnkjksa dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn
fdlh dks mijksDr cPps dh tUe frfFk iathdj.k fd;s tkus ckjs dksbZ ,rjkt gks rks og viuk ,rjkt
gekjh vnkyr esa fnukad 2&2&2013 dks vlkyru ;k odkyru gkftj vkdj is'k dj ldrk gS vU;Fkk
eqrkfcd 'kiFk&i= tUe frfFk iath—r fd;s tkus ckjs vkns'k ikfjr dj fn;s tk,axsA
vkt fnukad 3&1&2013 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr }kjk tkjh fd;k x;kA
eksgjA
eukst dqekj]
uk;c rglhynkj ,oa dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh]
/keZ'kkyk] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'kA
&&&&&&&&
c vnkyr tukc lgk;d lekgrkZ f}rh; Js.kh] Tokyh] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'k
Jherh deys'k dqekjh iRuh Jh jks'ku yky ckok] fuoklh xkao eqgky <u] ekStk Tokyh] rglhy
Tokyh] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'k
cuke
vke turk
izkFkZuk&i= tsj /kkjk 13 ¼3½ tUe ,oa e`R;q iathdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1969-
Jherh deys'k dqekjh iRuh Jh jks'ku yky ckok] fuoklh xkao eqgky <u] Mk0 erykgM+] rglhy
Tokyh] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'k us bl vnkyr esa izkFkZUkk&i= xqtkjk gS fd mlds iq= uhjt okok
iq= Jh jks'ku yky okok dk tUe fnukad 21&5&1989 dks xkao <u esa gqvk gS tks xyrh ls iapk;r fjdkMZ
esa iath—r ugha djok ldh gSA vc og tUe frfFk iapk;r fjdkMZ esa ntZ djokuk pkgrh gSA
vr% bl uksfVl ds ek/;e ls loZlk/kkj.k dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn fdlh O;fDr dks
mijksDr iathdj.k ckjs esa mtj o ,rjkt gks rks og fnukad 30&1&2013 dks lqcg 10-00 cts bl
U;k;ky; esa vlkyru ;k odkyru gkftj vkdj is'k dj ldrk gS vU;Fkk gkftj u vkus dh lwjr esa
;drjQk dk;Zokgh vey esa ykbZ tkdj tUe frfFk iapk;r fjdkMZ esa iath—r djus ds vkns'k ikfjr dj
fn, tk,axsA mlds mijkUr dksbZ ,rjkt u lquk tk,xkA
6109
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
vkt fnukad 3&1&2013 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr ls tkjh gqvkA
eksgjA
gLrk{kfjr@&
lgk;d lekgrkZ f}rh; Js.kh]
Tokyh] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'kA
&&&&&&&
c vnkyr rglhynkj ,oa dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] [kqf.M;ka] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'k
dsl ua0 % 18@2012@T fdLe eqdÌek % tUe frfFk ntZ djus ckjs
rkjh[k is'kh % 8&2&2013
Jherh liuk jkuh iRuh Jh izrki flag] fuoklh xkao fNyx] Mk0 o rglhy [kqf.M;ka] ftyk
dkaxM+k ¼fg0 iz0½
- -izkfFkZ;kA
cuke
vke turk
- - izfroknhx.kA
fo"k;-&&nj[okLr tsj /kkjk 13 ¼3½ tUe ,oa e`R;q iathdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1969 ds vUrxZrA
mijksDr of.kZr izkfFkZ;k us rglhy [kqf.M;ka eas v/kksgLrk{kjh ds le{k vlkyru gkftj gksdj bl
vnkyr esa izkFkZuk&i= xqtkjk gS fd izkfFkZ;k dk iq= jtuh'k dqekj ftldk tUe fnukad 28&4&1992 o
fodkl dqekj iq= liuk dqekjh dk tUe fnukad 6&12&1993 dks xzke iapk;r ?kjuk] rglhy [kqf.M;ka esa
gqvk gS] ijUrq xzke iapk;r ?kjuk esa mijksDr iq=ksa dh tUe rkjh[k Øe'k% 28&4&1992 dh txg
28&8&1992 rFkk 6&12&1993 dh txg 26&12&1993 ntZ gks pqdh gS ftldh n#Lrh ds izkfFkZ;k us
vkns'k pkgs gSaA
vr% bl uksfVl ds ek/;e ls loZlk/kkj.k dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn fdlh O;fDr dks
mijksDr iathdj.k ckjs fdlh izdkj dh vkifÙk gks rks og fnukad 8&2&2013 dks O;fDrxr :i ls vFkok
fdlh vf/koDrk ds ek/;e ls bl U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gksdj viuh vkifÙk O;Dr dj ldrk gS vU;Fkk
fnukad 8&2&2013 dks fdlh Hkh izdkj dh vkifÙk izLrqr u gksus dh fLFkfr esa jtuh'k dqekj iq= Jh izrki
flag dh tUe frfFk 28&8&1992 dh txg 28&4&1992 o iq= fodkl dqekj dh tUe frfFk 26&12&1993
dh txg 6&12&1992 iath—r djus ds vkns'k ikfjr dj fn, tk,axsA
vkt fnukad 8&1&2013 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr lfgr tkjh gqvkA
eksgjA
gLrk{kfjr@&
rglhynkj ,oa dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh]
[kqf.M;ka] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'kA
&&&&&&&
c vnkyr Jh lqjs'k ifV;ky] lgk;d lekgrkZ izFke Js.kh@rglhynkj] [kqf.M;ka] ftyk dkaxM+k]
fgekpy izns'k
eqdÌek ua0 % 16@2012@T
fdLe eqdÌek % uke n#Lrh
rkjh[k is'kh 8&2&2013
Jh iEeh jkt iq= Jh gjh pUn] fuoklh xkao fl)iqj] Mkd[kkuk o ekStk e>h.k] rglhy [kqf.M;ka]
ftyk dkaxM+k ¼fg0 iz0½
- - oknhA
cuke
6110
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
vke turk
- - izfroknhx.kA
fo"k;-&&jktLo vfHkys[k iVokj o`Ùk e>h.k] xkao fl)iqj esa xyr ntZ uke dh n#Lrh gsrq izkFkZuk&i=A
mijksDr of.kZr izkFkhZ iEeh jkt us v/kksgLrk{kjh ds le{k vlkyru gkftj gksdj vius uke dh
jktLo vfHkys[k esa n#Lrh gsrq 'kiFk&i= lfgr izkFkZuk&i= is'k fd;k gSA izkFkhZ us O;Dr fd;k gS fd
mldk vlyh uke iEeh jkt gSA izkFkhZ ds vuqlkj xzke iapk;r o cPpksa ds Ldwy izek.k&i=ksa esa Hkh mldk
uke iEeh jkt ntZ gS ijUrq jktLo vfHkys[k iVokj o`Ùk e>h.k esa mldk uke iEeh jkt dh txg Hkwfe
jkt ntZ gks pqdk gS ftldh n#Lrh ds izkFkhZ us vkns'k pkgs gSaA
vr% izkFkZuk&i= dks Lohdkj djrs gq, izfroknhx.k vke turk@fdlh Hkh fgrc) O;fDr ;k laLFkk
dks bl foKfIr ds ek/;e ls lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn fdlh dks mijksDr foKfIr ds ek/;e ls lwfpr
fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn mijksDr izkFkhZ ds uke dh n#Lrh ckjs fdlh fdLe dh vkifÙk gks rks og fnukad
8&2&2013 dks O;fDrxr :i ls vFkok fdlh vf/koDrk ds ek/;e ls bl U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gksdj
viuh vkifÙk O;Dr dj ldrk gS vU;Fkk fnukad 8&2&2013 dks fdlh Hkh izdkj dh vkifÙk izLrqr u gksus
dh fLFkr esa jktLo vfHkys[k esa uke dh n#Lrh ds vkns'k ikfjr dj fn, tk,axsA
vkt fnukad 8&1&2013 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr lfgr tkjh gqvkA
eksgjA
lqjs'k ifV;ky]
lgk;d lekgrkZ izFke Js.kh o rglhynkj]
[kqf.M;ka] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'kA
&&&&&&&
c vnkyr lgk;d lekgrkZ izFke Js.kh@rglhynkj] [kqf.M;ka] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'k
eqdÌek ua0 % ---------------------
fdLe eqdÌek % uke n#Lrh
rkjh[k is'kh 8&2&2013
Jh izse pUn iq= Jh rkuh jke] fuoklh xkao eqgky iq[k:] ekStk gcMksy] Mkd[kkuk yxM+w] rglhy
[kqf.M;ka] ftyk dkaxM+k ¼fg0 iz0½
- - izkFkhZA
cuke
vke turk
- - izfroknhx.kA
fo"k;-&&jktLo vfHkys[k esa xyr uke dh n#Lrh gsrq izkFkZuk&i=A
mijksDr of.kZr izkFkhZ Jh izse pUn iq= Jh rkuh jke] fuoklh xkao eqgky iq[k:] ekStk gcMksy]
Mkd[kkuk yxM+w] rglhy [kqf.M;ka] ftyk dkaxM+k ¼fg0 iz0½ us v/kksgLrk{kjh ds le{k vlkyru gkftj
gksdj vius uke dh jktLo vfHkys[k esa n#Lrh gsrq 'kiFk&i= lfgr izkFkZuk&i= is'k fd;k gSA izkFkhZ us
O;Dr fd;k gS fd mldk vlyh uke izse pUn gh gSA izkFkhZ ds vuqlkj xzke iapk;r iq[k# o cPpksa ds
Ldwy izek.k&i=ksa esa Hkh mldk uke izse pUn ntZ gS ijUrq jktLo vfHkys[k iVokj o`Ùk yxM+w ds eqgky
iq[k# esa mldk uke izse pUn dh txg caxkyh ntZ gS ftldh n#Lrh ds izkFkhZ us vkns'k pkgs gSaA
vr% izkFkZuk&i= dks Lohdkj djrs gq, izfroknhx.k vke turk fdlh Hkh fgrc) O;fDr ;k laLFkk
dks bl foKfIr ds ek/;e ls lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn mijksDr izkFkhZ ds uke dh n#Lrh ckjs fdlh
fdLe dh vkifÙk gks rks og fnukad 8&2&2013 dks O;fDrxr :i ls vFkok fdlh vf/koDrk ds ek/;e ls
bl U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gksdj viuh vkifÙk O;Dr dj ldrk gS vU;Fkk fnukad 8&2&2013 dks fdlh
6111
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
Hkh izdkj dh vkifÙk izLrqr u gksus dh fLFkr esa jktLo vfHkys[k esa uke dh n#Lrh ds vkns'k ikfjr dj
fn, tk,axsA
vkt fnukad 8&1&2013 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr lfgr tkjh gqvkA
eksgjA
gLrk{kfjr@&
lgk;d lekgrkZ izFke Js.kh o rglhynkj]
[kqf.M;ka] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'kA
&&&&&&&
c vnkyr dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] 'kkgiqj] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'k
Jh jfoUnz flag iq= Jh thr flag] fuoklh xkao oluwj] rglhy 'kkgiqj] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy
izns'k
- - oknhA
cuke
vke turk
fo"k;-& izkFkZuk i= tsj /kkjk 13¼3½ tUe ,oa e`R;q iathdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1969-
mijksDr izkFkhZ us v/kksgLrk{kjh dh vnkyr esa izkFkZuk&i= e; C;ku gYQh bl vk'k; ls xtkjk gS
fd esjs firk thr flag dh e`R;q fnukad 17&9&1996 dks gqbZ gS ysfdu e`R;q frfFk xzke iapk;r oluwj ds
fjdkWMZ esa ntZ u gS ftls ntZ fd;k tkosA
vr% bl lEcU/k esa loZlk/kkj.k dks ctfj;k b'rgkj lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn fdlh Hkh O;fDr
dks e`R;q frfFk ntZ djus ckjs dksbZ mtj o ,rjkt gks rks og fnukad 24&1&2013 dks vlkyru ;k
odkyru vnkyr gkftj vkdj is'k dj ldrk gSA gkftj u vkus dh lwjr esa ,drjQk dk;Zokgh vey
esa ykbZ tkdj e`R;q ntZ djus ds vkns'k dj fn, tk,axsA
vkt fnukad----------------------dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr ls tkjh gqvkA
eksgjA
gLrk{kfjr@&
dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh]
'kkgiqj] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'kA
&&&&&&&
c vnkyr dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] 'kkgiqj] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'k
Jherh jkuks nsoh iRuh Jh euh jke] fuoklh xkao njxsyk [kqiV~Vk] rglhy 'kkgiqj] ftyk dkaxM+k]
fgekpy izns'k
- - izkfFkZ;kA
cuke
vke turk
fo"k;-& izkFkZuk i= tsj /kkjk 13¼3½ tUe ,oa e`R;q iathdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1969-
6112
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
mijksDr izkFkhZ us v/kksgLrk{kjh dh vnkyr esa izkFkZuk&i= e; C;ku gYQh bl vk'k; ls xqtkjk gS
mldh iq=h vpZuk v=h dh tUe frfFk 15&5&1999 gS tksfd xzke iapk;r njxsyk ds fjdkWMZ esa ntZ u gS
ftls ntZ fd;k tkosA
vr% bl lEcU/k esa loZlk/kkj.k dks ctfj;k b'rgkj lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn fdlh Hkh O;fDr
dks tUe frfFk ntZ djus ckjs dksbZ mtj o ,rjkt gks rks og fnukad 30&1&2013 dks vlkyru ;k
odkyru vnkyr gkftj vkdj is'k dj ldrk gSA gkftj u vkus dh lwjr esa ,drjQk dk;Zokgh vey
esa ykbZ tkdj tUe frfFk ntZ djus ds vkns'k dj fn, tk,axsA
vkt fnukad------------------------dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr ls tkjh gqvkA
eksgjA
gLrk{kfjr@&
dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh]
'kkgiqj] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'kA
&&&&&&&
c vnkyr lgk;d lekgrkZ f}rh; Js.kh] 'kkgiqj] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'k
Jh vkse izdk'k iq= Jh >M+w jke] fuoklh xkao QyxsgM+] ekStk flgwa] rglhy 'kkgiqj] ftyk dkaxM+k]
fgekpy izns'k
- - oknhA
cuke
vke turk
fo"k;-&izkFkZuk&i= dkxtkr eky esa uke dh n#Lrh djus ckjsA
Jh vkse izdk'k iq= Jh >M+w jke] fuoklh xkao QyxsgM+] ekStk flgwa] rglhy 'kkgiqj us bl
dk;kZy; esa e; C;ku gYQh xqtkjk gS fd mldk lgh uke vkse izdk'k gSA ijUrq jktLo vfHkys[k esa vkseh
ntZ gS tksfd xyr gSA n#Lrh dh tkosA
vr% bl b'rgkj ds ek/;e ls vke turk dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn fdlh O;fDr dks
dksbZ mtj o ,rjkt gks rks og fnukad 24&1&2013 dks bl dk;kZy; esa is'k dj ldrk gS vU;Fkk uke
dh n#Lrh dkxtkr eky esa fu;ekuqlkj dj nh tk,xhA
vkt fnukad----------------------dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr ls tkjh gqvkA
eksgjA
gLrk{kfjr@&
lgk;d lekgrkZ f}rh; Js.kh]
'kkgiqj] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'kA
6113
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
c vnkyr lgk;d lekgrkZ f}rh; Js.kh] 'kkgiqj] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'k
Jh fxj/kkjh yky iq= Jh pek# jke] fuoklh xkao dsVyq] Mk0 jtksy] rglhy 'kkgiqj] ftyk
dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'kA
cuke
vke turk
fo"k;-&izkFkZuk&i= dkxtkr eky esa uke dh n#Lrh djus ckjsA
Jh fxj/kkjh yky iq= Jh pek# jke] fuoklh xkao dsVyq] Mk0 jtksy] rglhy 'kkgiqj us bl
dk;kZy; esa e; C;ku gYQh xqtkjk gS fd mldk lgh uke fxj/kkjh yky gSA ijUrq jktLo vfHkys[k esa
Mweuw ntZ gS tksfd xyr gSA n#Lrh dh tkosA
vr% vke turk dks bl jkti= b'rgkj }kjk lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn fdlh O;fDr dks dksbZ
mtj o ,rjkt gks rks og fnukad 30&1&2013 dks izkr% 10-00 cts vlkyru ;k odkyru gkftj vkdj
is'k dj ldrk gSA xSj&gktjh dh lwjr esa ,drjQk dk;Zokgh vey esa ykbZ tk,xhA
vkt fnukad-----------------------------dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr ls tkjh gqvkA
eksgjA
gLrk{kfjr@&
lgk;d lekgrkZ f}rh; Js.kh]
'kkgiqj] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'kA
&&&&&&&
c vnkyr lgk;d lekgrkZ f}rh; Js.kh] mi&rglhy /keZiqj] ftyk e.Mh] fgekpy izns'k
Jh lat; dqekj iq= Jh t; nso] fuoklh tksy eyqok] mi&rglhy /keZiqj] ftyk e.Mh - - izkFkÊA
cuke
vke turk
izkFkZuk&i= v/khu /kkjk 13 ¼3½ tUe ,oa e`R;q iathdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1969-
izkFkÊ Jh lat; dqekj us bl vnkyr esas izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr djrs gq, vius izkFkZuk&i= esa mYys[k
fd;k gS fd mldh iq=h dqekjh lk{kh dk tUe 17&11&2007 dks gqvk gS ijUrq og vKkurko'k mldh
tUe frfFk lEcfU/kr xzke iapk;r ds fjdkWMZ esa ntZ ugha djok ldk gSA ftls vc og ntZ djokuk pkgrk
gSA
vr% vke turk dks bl b'rgkj }kjk lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn fdlh O;fDr vke ;k [kkl
dks mDr dqekjh lk{kh dh tUe frfFk ntZ djus ckjs dksbZ mtj@,rjkt gks rks og fnukad 29&1&2013
dks izkr% 10-00 cts vlkyru ;k odkyru gkftj gksdj is'k dj ldrk gS vU;Fkk gkftj u vkus dh
lwjr esa ,drjQk dk;Zokgh vey esa ykbZ tkdj izkFkZUkk&i= dk fuiVkjk fu;ekuqlkj dj fn;k tk,xkA
vkt fnukad 28&12&2012 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr ls tkjh gqvkA
eksgjA
gLrk{kfjr@&
lgk;d lekgrkZ f}rh; Js.kh]
/keZiqj] ftyk e.Mh] fgekpy izns'kA
6114
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 19 tuojh] 2013@29 ikS"k] 1934
c vnkyr Jh V'kh lUMqi ¼fg0iz0ls0½ lekgrkZ] mi&e.My ikaoVk lkfgc] ftyk fljekSj] fgekpy izns'k
fely ua0 % 26@10 rkjh[k nk;j % 21&6&2010
rkjh[k is'kh % 21&1&2013
Jh txnh'k pUn iq= Jh xjhcw] fuoklh xzke tksgMksa] rglhy ikaoVk lkfgc] ftyk fljekSj]
fgekpy izns'k
- - vihydÙkkZA
cuke
Jh Msjk iq= Jh xksank] fuoklh xzke tksgMksa] rglhy ikaoVk lkfgc] ftyk fljekSj] fgekpy izns'k o
vU;
- - izfroknhx.kA
Hkw&jktLo fu;e dh /kkjk 14 ds vUrxZr lgk;d lekgrkZ izFke Js.kh] ikaoVk lkfgc }kjk
fely ua0 85@06 rFkk 86@06 muoku eqdÌek txnh'k pUn vkfn cuke Msjk vkfn esa
ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 27&4&10 ds fo#) vihyA
uksfVl cuke %
izfroknh uEcj 21 Jherh fceyk nsoh] uEcj 22 Jherh ekMks nsoh] uEcj 23 Jherh jks'kuh
nsoh] uEcj 24 Jherh iksgyks nsoh iqf=;ka Jh ekMk] izfroknh uEcj 31 Jherh tlfoUnz dkSj
rFkk uEcj 32 Jherh xjhcw nsoh iq=h o fo/kok Jh dkMw leLr fuoklhx.k xzke ckydkokMh
¼MksbZokyk½] ftyk nsgjknwu ¼m0 [k0½A
mijksDr eqdÌek muoku ckyk esa bl U;k;ky; esa mijksDr Jh txnh'k pUn vkfn nkokdÙkkZvksa
}kjk Jh Msjk vkfn ds f[kykQ Hkw&jktLo fu;e 14 ds vUrxZr lgk;d lekgrkZ izFke Js.kh] ikaoVk lkfgc
}kjk fely la[;k 85@06 rFkk 86@06 muoku eqdÌek txnh'k pUn vkfn cuke Msjk vkfn esa fnukad
27&4&2010 dks ikfjr fd, x, vkns'k ds lEcU/k esa ,d vihy nk;j dh xbZ gS ftldh lquokbZ bl
vnkyr }kjk dh tk jgh gSA bl U;k;ky; }kjk mDr izfrokfn;ksa dks dbZ ckj leu tkjh fd, x, ijUrq
leu dh rkehy ugha dh tk ldhA ftlls izrhr gksrk gS fd mDr izfrokfn;ksa dks lk/kkj.k rjhds ls leu
dh rkehy dh tkuh lEHko ugha gSA
vr% mDr izfrokfn;ksa dks ctfj;k b'rgkj lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd os eqdÌek dh iSjoh gsrq
vlkyru o odkyru fnukad 21&1&2013 dks lqcg 10-00 cts bl vnkyr esa gkftj vkosaA vnkyr esa
gkftj u gksus dh lwjr esa muds fo:) dk;Zokgh ,drjQk vey esa ykbZ tk,xhA
vkt fnukad 3&1&2013 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr ls tkjh gqvkA
eksgjA
V'kh lUMqi]
lekgrkZ]
mi&e.My] ikaoVk lkfgc] ftyk fljekSj] fgekpy izns'kA
fu;U=d] eqnz.k rFkk ys[ku lkexzh] fgekpy izns'k] f'keyk&5 }kjk eqfnzr rFkk izdkf'kr