jkti=] fgekpy izns'k
fgekpy izns'k jkT; 'kklu }kjk izdkf'kr
f”keyk] lkseokj] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B] 1935
fgekpy izns'k ljdkj
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-171001
NOTIFICATION
Shimla the 11th June, 2013
No. HHC/GAZ/14-323/2011.—Hon’ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to grant 13
days’ earned leave w.e.f. 17.06.2013 to 29.6.2013 with permission to prefix Sunday falling on
16.06.2013 and to suffix Sunday falling on 30.06.2013 in favour of Mrs. Upasna Sharma, Civil
Judge (Junior Division)-cum-JMIC Court No. 3 Mandi , District Mandi, H.P.
Certified that Smt. Upasna Sharma is likely to join the same post and at the same station
from where she proceeds on leave, after expiry of the above period of leave.
Also certified that Smt. Upasna Sharma would have continued to hold the same post of
Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-JMIC, Court No. 3, Mandi, H.P., but for her proceeding on
leave for the above period.
By order,
Sd/-
Registrar General.
58&jkti=@2013&27&06&2013 ¼1645½
1646
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-171 001
NOTIFICATION
Shimla, 13th June, 2013
No. HHC/GAZ/14-198/89-III.—Consequent upon the appointment of Shri J.K.Sharma,
Director, H.P.Judicial Academy as President District Consumer Forum, Shimla, vide notification
No. FDS-B(2)-9/2010, dated 13th June, 2013, issued by the Principal Secretary (F, CS & CA) to
the Government of Himachal Pradesh, the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. has been pleased to order to
relieve the above named officer from the present assignment, with immediate effect to enable him
to join new assignment.
By order,
Sd/-
Registrar General.
_________
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA–171 001
NOTIFICATION
Shimla, the 13th June, 2013
No. HHC/GAZ/14-221/96.—Hon’ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to grant 18 days
earned leave w.e.f. 29.5.2013 to 15.6.2013 with permission to suffix Sunday falling on 16.6.2013 in
favour of Shri Padam Singh, Additional District and Sessions Judge(I), Mandi.
Certified that Shri Padam Singh is likely to join the same post and at the same station from
where he proceeds on leave after expiry of the above period of leave.
Also certified that Shri Padam Singh would have continued to hold the post of Additional
District and Sessions Jud ge(I), Mandi, but for his proceeding on leave for the above period.
By order,
Sd/-
Registrar General.
_________
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-171 001
NOTIFICATION
Shimla the 13th June, 2013
No. HHC/GAZ/14-324/2011.—Hon’ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to grant ex post
facto sanction of 22 days’ earned leave w.e.f. 13.4.2013 to 4.5.2013 with permission to suffix
Sunday fell on 5.5.2013 in favour of Sh. Vishal Bhamnotra, Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-
JMIC(III), Ghumarwin, H.P.
1647
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
Certified that Sh. Vishal Bhamnotra had joined the same post and at the same station from
where he had proceeded on leave, after expiry of the above period of leave.
Also certified that Sh. Vishal Bhamnotra would have continued to hold the post of Civil
Judge (Junior Division)-cum-JMIC(III), Ghumarwin, H.P. but for his proceeding on leave for the
above period.
By order,
Sd/-
Registrar General.
_________
fof/k foHkkx
vf/klwpuk
f'keyk&2] 4 ebZ] 2013
la[;k ,y0,y0vkj0&bZ¼9½&6@2012&yst-&&D;ksafd Jh latho dqekj xqysfj;k] vf/koDrk dks bl
foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk la[;k0 ,y0 ,y0 vkj0&bZ¼9½&4@2010&yst rkjh[k 09&12&2011 }kjk mi&e.My+
gehjiqj] ftyk gehjiqj ds fy, uksVjh ifCyd ds #i esa fu;qDr fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj mudk uke uksVjh ds
jftLVj esa Øe la[;k 374 ij izfo"V fd;k x;k Fkk (
vkSj D;ksafd Jh latho dqekj xqysfj;k] uksVjh ifCyd gehjiqj us i= fnukad 20&04&2013 }kjk
lwfpr fd;k gS fd og uksVjh ifCyd ds :i esa dk;Z djus ds bPNqd ugha gS vkSj bl lanHkZ esa vius
izek.k i= dks okfil djus dk vuqjks/k fd;k gS A
vr% fgekpy izns'k ds jkT;iky] uksVjh vf/kfu;e] 1952 dh /kkjk 10¼d½ ds lkFk ifBr uksVjh
fu;e] 1956 ds fu;e 13 ¼13½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDRk;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Jh latho dqekj xqysfj;k] uksVjh
ifCyd] mi&e.My gehjiqj] ftyk gehjiqj dk uke uksVjh ds jftLVj ls rqjUr gVk, tkus dk vkns'k nsrs
gSa A
vkns'k }kjk]
¼fpjkx Hkkuw flag½]
lfpo ¼fof/k½A
&&&&&&&
[Authoritative English text of this Department Notification No. LLR-E(9)6/2012-Leg. Dated
04 -05-2013 as required under Article 348(3) of the Constitution of India].
LAW DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATION
Shimla-2, the 4th May, 2013
No. LLR-E(9)- 6/2012-Leg.—WHEREAS Shri Sanjeev Kumar Guleria, Advocate
was appointed as Public Notary vide Government Notification No.LLR-E(9)-4/2010-Leg. dated
09-12-2011 and authorised to practice as such within the territorial limits of Sub-Division
1648
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
Hamirpur of District Hamirpur and his name was entered at serial No. 374 in the Register of
Notaries ;
AND WHEREAS Shri Sanjeev Kumar Guleria, Advocate Hamirpur vide letter dated 20-04-
2013 has intimated that he is not interested to continue to practice as Public Notary and has
requested to withdraw his certificate of practice.
NOW, therefore, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh in exercise of the powers conferred by
section 10(a) of the Notaries Act, 1952 read with rule 13(13) of the Notaries Rules, 1956 is please
to order the removal of the name of Shri Sanjeev Kumar Guleria, Notary Public of Sub-Division
Hamirpur of District Hamirpur from the Register of Notaries with immediate effect.
By order,
(CHIRAG BHANU SINGH),
LR-cum- Secretary (Law).
___________I
LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATION
Shimla-2, the 24-01-2013
No. Sharm (A) 7-1/2005 (Award) -part-file 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, Shimla of the
following cases on the website of Labour & Employment Department:—
Sr.
No.
Case No.
Title of the Case
Date of Award
1.
287/2002
Smt./Shri Dhain Singh V/s Vice President Jayko
India Ltd, Solan.
6-12-2012
2.
285/2002
Sh. Rajesh Kumar V/S -do-
6-12-2012
3.
77/2009
Sh. Bidhi Chand V/s M/S Eicher Tractor
Parwanoo.
15-12-2012
4.
51/2007
Sh. Nagin Chand V/s M/S Gujrat Ambuja
cement, D/Ghat.
6-12-2012
5.
40/2010
Sh. Rajesh Kumar V/S M/S Isdoyed Engg
technoliges Ltd.
5-12-2012
6.
60/2010
Sh. Raj Kumar V/S M/S Anand Aircon Parwanoo.
11-12-2012
7.
54/2011
Sh. Virender Thakur V/s M/S Padmawati Balaji
Kasumpti.
20-12-2012
8.
59/2011
Sh. Mohan Singh V/s M/s Diamond Products
Ltd. Sirmour.
18-12-2012
9.
33/2008
Sh. Brij Lal V/s M.D. Ambuja Cement Ltd.
6-12-2012
10.
33/2011
Sh. Summan Bala V/s M/s Shivalik Agro poly
product & others.
3-12-2012
11.
45/2007
Sh. Virender Kumar Sharma V/s M/S Raja
Forging & Gears Ltd. Sai Road, Baddi.
31-12-2012
BY order,
Sd/-
Addl.Chief Secretary ( Lab. & Emp.).
1649
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
IN THE COURT OF PURENDER VAIDYA, PRESIDING JUDGE, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA, (H.P.)
Ref No. 77 of 2009.
Instituted on. 19.8.2009.
Decided on 15.12.2012.
Bidhi Chand S/o Shri Devi Singh R/o Village & P.O Badhar, Tehsil Bhoranj, District
Hamirpur, H.P through Shri J.C Bhardwaj, President HP AITUC, H.Q. Saproon, Solan, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Vs.
The Managing Director, M/s Echier Tractors, Transmission Division (A unit of Tafe Motors
and Tractors Ltd.,) Plot No. 29-30, Sector-II Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P.
..Respondent.
Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For petitioner : Shri J.C Bhardwaj, AR.
For respondent : Shri Hardeep Verma, Advocate.
AWARD
The following reference has been received from appropriate government for adjudication:
“Whether the dismissal from services of Shri Bidhi Chand S/o late Shri Devi Singh,
Machine Operator by the Vice President, Eicher Tractor Transmission Division (A
unit of Tafe Motors and Tractors Ltd.) Parwanoo w.e.f. 28.6.2008 vide letter dated
28.6.2008 after serving chargesheet and after holding enquiry is legal and justified? If
not to what back wages, seniority, service benefits and relief the concerned workman
is entitled to?”
2. The petitioner has filed the claim petition stating that he was appointed as machine
operator by the respondent in August, 1984. He remained in continuous service till 28.6.2008 when
he was wrongly and illegally terminated by the respondent on the basis of some enquiry. The
petitioner challenged the enquire enquiry on the ground that enquiry officer did not serve any
notice upon him and did not inform the date, place and time of enquiry. Earlier a preliminary
enquiry was conducted and its report was also not supplied to the petitioner. The witnesses who
were examined by the management, were biased against the petitioner. The witness Surinder Arora
did not state anything regarding the charges against the petitioner but he stated about the previous
allegations whereas other witness Ashok Sharma, the leave sanctioning authority, stated that
petitioner remained absent from 19.5.2005 to 1.6.2005 but on the other hand he had sanctioned the
leave of the petitioner. The petitioner further stated that the documents relating to the enquiry in
question were not supplied to him with the chargesheet. Further during enquiry, no documents were
supplied to him. Hence, the entire enquiry was illegal and against the principles of natural justice.
As the result, petitioner prayed to set aside the enquiry report as well as his termination orders and
further prayed to reinstate him with all consequential benefits.
3. The respondent contested the claim of petitioner by filing a reply wherein it was
admitted that the petitioner was appointed as a workman by the respondent since August, 1984.
However, it was stated that the petitioner was habitual absentee as he used to remain absent un-
1650
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
authorisedly and for the same earlier also warnings and punishment of stoppage of increments and
suspension were imposed upon him. It was stated that chargesheets dated 8.6.2005 and 26.4.2006
were served upon the petitioner and he could not give any satisfactory reply, consequently,
domestic enquiry was conducted wherein the charges levelled against petitioner were proved. The
petitioner was informed and he was associated in the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted as per
the principles of natural justice. Therefore, legal punishment was imposed upon the
petitioner.Hence, respondent prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition.
4.
Petitioner filed rejoinder wherein he denied all the allegations of respondent in reply
and further reasserted the averments already made in the claim petition.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed.
1. Whether the services of petitioner w.e.f. 28.6.2008 have been dismissed without
holding proper and fair domestic enquiry as alleged?
..OPP.
2. If issue no.1 is proved to what relief of service benefits, the petitioner is entitled
to?
..OPP.
3. Relief.
6. The aforesaid issues were read over and explained to both the parties. No other issue
was pressed and claimed. Evidence of both the parties on the aforesaid issues were recorded.
7. I have heard both the parties and gone through the record carefully.
8. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter my findings on the aforesaid issues are as
under:
Issue No. 1 :
Yes.
Issue No. 2 :
Entitled to reinstatement in service with seniority and continuity but without back
wages.
Relief. :
Reference answered in negative as the services of petitioner have been illegally
terminated per operative part of award.
REASONS FOR FINDING
Issue No. 1.
9. After hearing both the parties and going though the record carefully, I am of the
considered opinion that the petitioner was wrongly and illegally terminated by the respondent
without holding proper and fair domestic enquiry. The enquiry in question conducted against the
petitioner is against the principles of natural justice, hence, the same is not sustainable under law.
Consequently, the termination orders of petitioner on the basis of said enquiry report is liable to set
aside for the reasons recorded hereinafter.
10. The petitioner stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and deposed that he proceeded on
leave on the first death anniversary of his father-in-law and initially his leave application was
recommended and subsequently it was manipulated as not recommended by the Engineer.
Thereafter, his wife fell ill, so, he sent Fax mark A for the extension of leave on 24.5.2005. He
tendered in evidence the original Fax Ex. P-3 as well as medical certificate of his wife Ex. P-4. His
testimony is further revealing that he was served a show cause notice Ex. P-1 and he filed reply Ex.
1651
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
P-2. He has further deposed that during enquiry he submitted written arguments Ex. P-5 but the
enquiry officer again re-opened the enquiry and recorded the statement of senior Engineer Ashok
Sharma. Then he filed a protest letter dated 28.7.2006 Ex. P-6. The petitioner further deposed that
the enquiry officer did not afford opportunity to him to rebut the statement of Ashok Sharma.
11. The respondent has examined Shri G.D Maheshwari, enquiry officer as RW-1. He has
stated that he conducted two enquiries against the petitioner. He has stated that the petitioner was
associated during enquiries and opportunities were given to him to cross-examine the management
witnesses, thereafter, opportunity was given to the petitioner to lead evidence. In his cross-
examination, he has admitted that after the closer of the evidence of the parties, one witness on
behalf of management was called and examined. But there is nothing in his testimony that the
petitioner was informed about the examination of management witness after the closer of evidence
of both the parties and opportunity was given to the petitioner to crossexamine said witness.
12. The enquiry proceedings are Ex. PX. These proceedings are revealing that the
statement of Shri Ashok Sharma witness was recorded in the end. His statement is revealing since
the petitioner and his defence assistant/representative refused to participate in the enquiry, so there
was no question of cross-examination. Consequently, the statement of witness was recorded. But
proceeding dated 29.7.2006 are not revealing that that the petitioner was heard by the enquiry
officer on the point to examine shri Ashok Sharma as a witness, especially when the evidence of
both the parties were over and enquiry was fixed for final arguments. The testimony of petitioner is
revealing that Ashok Sharma was examined as management witness when he had already submitted
his written arguments. The enquiry proceedings Ex. PX do not reveal the reasons why Shri Ashok
Sharma was examined on behalf of management when the evidence of parties were over. The
proceedings
dated
29.7.2006
are
revealing
that
the
petitioner
and
his
defence
assistant/representative had refused to participate in the enquiry proceeding. To my mind, this
conduct of petitioner is justified because there was apparent biasness on the part of enquiry officer
against the petitioner as he did not hear the petitioner on the point of examination of Shri Ashok
Sharma as management witness at the fag end of enquiry. Moreover, the proceedings dated
29.7.2006 are silent why the enquiry officer thought it necessary to examine Shri Ashok Sharma at
the fag end of enquiry. Therefore, I am satisfied with the arguments advanced on behalf of
petitioner that the enquiry officer was biased against the petitioner. On this ground, the enquiry
proceedings are not sustainable under law.
13. Further the petitioner has alleged that he was not supplied with the documents along-
with chargesheet. Again the testimony of enquiry officer (RW-1) is relevant. In his cross-
examination, he has admitted that no document was tagged with the chargesheet. The enquiry
proceedings Ex. PX are revealing that on 20.9.2005 on behalf of management documents Ex. M-1
to Ex. M-22 were tendered in evidence. However, on the same day, copies of those documents were
supplied to the petitioner. But to my mind, those documents could have been supplied to the
petitioner along-with chargesheet and before the commencement of enquiry. As discussed
hereinabove, one management witness Shri Ashok Sharma was examined at the fag end of enquiry
when the enquiry was fixed for final arguments and this witness also tendered in evidence
documents Ex. MW-2/1 to Ex. MW-2/2, copies of these documents were also not supplied to the
petitioner.
14. Hence, it stands established on record that on behalf of management no steps were
taken for the supply of material/documents to the petitioner in advance before the commencement
of enquiry which were relied upon during the enquiry proceeding. I am of the considered opinion
that failure to supply the same to the petitioner before the commencement of enquiry would render
the entire enquiry proceedings unsustainable under law and the dismissal of the petitioner is also
not sustainable as reasonable opportunity to defend was denied to the petitioner. Here, I am
1652
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
supported by the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matters of 2011-II-LLJ-
627 (SC) and 2002-I-LLJ-544 (SC).
15. Consequently, for the aforesaid reasons, the dismissal from service of petitioner w.e.f.
28.6.2008 is illegal and unjustified in the absence of proper and fair domestic enquiry. Hence, this
issue is answered in favour of petitioner.
Issue No. 2.
16. For the reason to be recorded hereinabove while deciding issue no.1, the dismissal
from services of petitioner w.e.f. 28.6.2008 by the respondent is hereby set aside and the petitioner
is entitled to reinstatement in service with immediate effect with seniority and continuity. However,
the petitioner is not entitled to back wages as it is settled law that back wages cannot be granted
mechanically when the order of termination is declared illegal. Taking into account all the facts and
circumstances of the case, to my mind the petitioner is not entitled to back wages. Accordingly, this
issue is answered in favour of petitioner.
RELIEF
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the claim of the petitioner is allowed and as such the
dismissal from services of petitioner w.e.f. 28.6.2008 by the respondent is set aside and the
petitioner is ordered to be reinstatement in service with immediate effect with seniority and
continuity but without back wages and the reference is decided in negative. Let a copy of this
award be sent to the appropriate government for publication in official gazette. File, after
completion, be consigned to records.
Announced in the open court today on this 15th day of December, 2012.
By order,
Sd/-
Presiding Judge,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Shimla.
__________
IN THE COURT OF PURENDER VAIDYA, PRESIDING JUDGE, INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA, (H.P.)
Ref . No. 287 of 2002
Instituted on. 16.9.2002.
Decided on 06.12.2012.
Dhian Singh S/o Shri Darshan Singh, though J.C Bhardwaj, President HP AITUC H.Q
Saproon Solan, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Vs.
The Vice President, Joyco India Ltd., Village Katha, P.O Baddi, District Solan 173205.
..Respondent.
Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
1653
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
For petitioner : Shri J.C Bhardwaj, AR.
For respondent : Shri Rajeev Sharma, Advocate.
AWARD
The following reference has been received from appropriate government for adjudication:
“Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by M/s Joyco India Ltd., Baddi District Solan,
H.P against Shri Dhian Singh S/o Shri Darshan Singh workman and termination of his
services w.e.f. 13.5.2000 on the basis of enquiry report is fair and justified? If not what
relief of service benefits including seniority and back wages the above workman is
entitled to? ”
2. The petitioner has filed the claim petition on the ground that he was serving in the
respondent establishment since 11.11.1995. The workmen had filed a demand notice dated
6.10.1999 which was pending for adjudication. Despite the pendency of demand notice, the
respondent illegally terminated the services of petitioner w.e.f. 13.5.2000 on the basis of one-sided
illegal enquiry. In fact, the respondent did not inform the petitioner about the initiation of enquiry
as well as appointment of enquiry officer. During the pendency of enquiry, no suspension
allowance was paid to the petitioner. The chargesheet was not served upon the petitioner and before
terminating his services proper service of show cause notice was not effected upon him. Before the
initiation of enquiry, the petitioner was not supplied with the copy of documents relied upon by the
enquiry officer, hence, the enquiry was conducted against the principles of natural justice. The
petitioner also challenged his termination on the ground that it was in violation of section 33(2)-b
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in view of pendency of demand notice dated 6.10.1999. Hence,
petitioner prayed to set aside his termination orders and to reinstate him with all consequential
benefits.
3. The respondent contested the claim of petitioner by filing a reply wherein preliminary
objections as to maintainability of the petition and suppression of material facts by the petitioner
were raised. On merits, the respondent admitted that the petitioner was employee of the respondent.
However, it was further stated that the petitioner indulged in grave misconduct during the course of
his employment. In fact, petitioner remained absent from duty without any sanctioned leave w.e.f.
1.11.1999. On 11.11.1999, the respondent management had issued notice to the petitioner asking
him to attend the duties, but in vain. The respondent management again issued a show cause notice
dated 24.11.1999 to the petitioner asking him to resume his duties. When petitioner did not join his
duties, then chargesheet dated 1.12.1999 was issued to him and he was asked to file the reply
within stipulated time, but petitioner did not file any reply. Consequently, shri R.K Soni was
appointed as an enquiry officer and he conducted the enquiry as per the principles of natural justice.
The petitioner attended one hearing of enquiry and thereafter chose to remain absent, so exparte
proceedings in enquiry were conducted and charges against the petitioner were proved.
Consequently, show cause notice was issue to the petitioner informing him that the respondent
intended to impose penalty of dismissal. The petitioner was asked to file the reply but again
petitioner did not file any reply. The enquiry report was also sent to the petitioner, hence, petitioner
was legally terminated from service in the light of legal and valid enquiry report. The respondent
also stated that the petitioner was gainfully employed, hence, he was not entitled to be reinstated
with consequential service benefits. Hence, respondent prayed for the dismissal of the claim
petition.
4. Petitioner filed rejoinder wherein he denied all the preliminary objections taken by the
respondent in reply and further reasserted the averments already made in the claim petition.
1654
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed.
1. Whether the petitioner has been illegally terminated from service w.e.f. 13.5.2000
on the basis of enquiry report? If so, its effect?
..OPP.
2. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative to what relief the petitioner is entitled to?
..OPP.
3. Whether the petition in the present form is not maintainable?
..OPR.
4. Whether the petitioner is gainfully employed? If so, its effect?
..OPR.
5. Relief.
6. The aforesaid issues were read over and explained to both the parties. No other issue
was pressed and claimed. Evidence of both the parties on the aforesaid issues were recorded.
7. I have heard both the parties and gone through the record carefully.
8. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter my findings on the aforesaid issues are as
under:
Issue No. 1 :
Yes.
Issue No. 2 :
Entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity on the same terms and
conditions but without back wages.
Issue No. 3 :
No.
Isue No. 4 :
Yes.
Relief. :
Reference answered in negative as the services of petitioner have been illegally
terminated per operative part of award.
REASONS FOR FINDING
Issue No. 1.
9. In the light of arguments of both the parties and material on record, I am of the
considered opinion that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner is not sustainable under law as
to my mind principles of natural justice have been violated. As the result, the termination of
petitioner from service w.e.f. 13.5.2000 is not sustainable under law.
10. Both the parties have led evidence in support of their respective contentions. Petitioner
examined himself in evidence whereas on behalf of respondent four witnesses were examined
including the enquiry officer.
11. It is un-disputed fact that the petitioner was employee of the respondent company and
he was absent from his duties since 1.11.1999. The petitioner in his cross-examination has admitted
this fact that he was absent from duties since 1.11.1999. However, the petitioner has stated that he
was not allowed to enter the gate of the premises by the security. It is also un-disputed fact that for
the aforesaid absence, the petitioner was chargesheeted and was held guilty and consequently he
was terminated from service by the respondent.
12. It is the case of the respondent that a letter dated 11.11.1999 was issued to the
petitioner asking him to attend the duties but this fact could not be proved with the help of evidence
1655
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
on record. Although, RW-3 Hardeep Rana, the Plant Manager of respondent has deposed this fact
but he could not produce the copy of letter dated 11.11.1999 and further it could not be proved by
the respondent that copy of said letter was supplied to the petitioner. This witness has further stated
that on 24.11.1999 respondent company issued show cause notice Ex. PW-3/A to the petitioner
vide postal receipt Ex. RW-3/A-1 and registered AD Ex. RW-3/B and Ex. RW-3/C. But the
registered AD does not reveal that the said notice was received by the petitioner. RW-3 has further
stated that on 22.12.1999, the respondent decided to initiate enquiry against the petitioner vide
letter Ex. RW-3/D and R.K Soni was appointed as an enquiry officer. But again service of this
letter upon the petitioner is not proved. So, it is not proved that petitioner was informed about the
appointment of enquiry officer.
13. Ex. RP-1 is the chargesheet dated 1.12.1999 which bears the signature of Manager
P&A of respondent company. It is not proved on record that copy of said chargesheet was supplied
to the petitioner. The statement of petitioner is revealing that no chargesheet was served upon him.
However, he has further stated that the chargesheet was shown to him on the gate of factory and he
had filed the reply of the same but as per respondent witness, the petitioner did not file any reply to
the chargesheet. First of all, burden was upon the respondent to show that the chargesheet was
served upon the petitioner and copy of same was supplied to him but his burden could not be
discharged by the respondent as there is no documentary evidence on record to show that copy of
chargesheet Ex. RP-1 was supplied to the petitioner.
14. The testimony of petitioner is revealing that he was informed about the enquiry on the
factory gate but no written letter was received by him. The respondent has examined RW-4 Rajesh
Kumar, the enquiry officer who has stated that when he was appointed as enquiry officer, he had
issued notice to the petitioner to appear before him but the petitioner did not appear. I do not find
any force in this testimony of enquiry officer. The enquiry officer has placed on record the copies
of proceedings of enquiry Ex. RW-4/B, Ex. RW-4/C and Ex. RW-4/D. These documents are
revealing that the enquiry started on 4.1.2000 and on that day the worker/petitioner was not present.
As discussed hereinabove, there is no notice to the petitioner to appear before enquiry officer on
4.1.2000. These proceedings are revealing that the notice along-with chargesheet was served
through registered post to the petitioner but it was received back unclaimed. This evidence is
sufficient to suggest that the chargesheet and notice was not received by the petitioner. Ex. RW-4/A
is revealing that the enquiry officer had held that he would inform worker/petitioner through
registered post about the next date of enquiry which was 18.1.2000. Ex. RW-4/C is the copy of
proceedings dated 18.1.2000. It is revealing that on said date petitioner appeared before the enquiry
officer. The petitioner has stated in his testimony that on 4.1.2000 he had gone to the place of
enquiry but the enquiry officer did not turn up, so he wrote letters Ex. P/7 and Ex. P/8 to the Vice
President of the respondent company. However, he has admitted that he appeared before the
enquiry officer on 18.1.2000 when he made a written request vide Ex. RP-3 to conduct the enquiry
in Hindi. This fact has been mentioned by the enquiry officer in proceedings dated 18.1.2000, copy
of which is Ex. RW-4/B. These proceedings are revealing that next date of enquiry for evidence
was fixed for 3.2.2000. But these proceedings are not revealing that the enquiry officer had
supplied the documents to the petitioner as well as list of witnesses. In the absence of such
compliance, the principles of natural justice have been violated as the petitioner was unable to
defend himself effectively. The copy of proceedings of enquiry Ex. RW- 4/D is revealing that on
3.2.2000 two witnesses were examined who tendered in evidence documents M-I to M-VI but these
documents were not earlier supplied to the petitioner when he appeared before enquiry officer on
18.1.2000.
15. On 18.1.2000, the enquiry officer did not make any efforts to ask the worker/petitioner
whether he intended to appoint any defence assistant. There is nothing on record to show that
1656
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to appoint defence assistant. The denial of any such
opportunity is also violation of principle of natural justice.
16. On behalf of respondent it was argued that after the conclusion of enquiry, show cause
notice was served upon the petitioner along-with copy of enquiry report informing him about the
out-come of enquiry and further petitioner was informed that respondent had decided to dismiss
him. But there is no specific documentary evidence on record to show that in fact the copy of
enquiry report was received by the petitioner and he also received show cause notice. Therefore,
there is no occasion for the petitioner to file reply to enquiry report.
17. The respondent has examined RW-1 Shri K.R Chauhan and RW-2 Shri Ramesh Gupta
to prove the extract of attendance register Ex. RA to Ex. RA-6 and letters Ex. RA-7 and Ex. RP-6.
But these documents would not make the enquiry report a legal and valid evidence.
18. In the light of my aforesaid discussion, it stands established that prior to the initiation
of enquiry against the petitioner for his absence w.e.f. 1.11.1999, no show cause notice was served
upon him. Further it is also proved that the chargesheet was not supplied to the petitioner. At the
same time, the documents relied upon by the enquiry officer during enquiry were not supplied to
the petitioner. The petitioner was not supplied with the list of witnesses by the enquiry officer. Here
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2011-II-LLJ-627 (SC) is relevant wherein it
has been held that:
“It was a settled principle of natural justice that if any material was to be relied in
departmental proceedings, a copy of the same must be supplied to the charge sheeted
employee so that he might have a chance to rebut the same.”
19. Further, it also stands established that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to
appoint defence assistant. All these established facts are sufficient to hold that the enquiry was not
conducted in fair and proper manner as the opportunity of being heard was denied to the petitioner.
This resulted into violation of principles of natural justice. As the result, the enquiry report Ex.
RW-3/E is not sustainable under law and liable to set aside. Consequently, the termination of
services of petitioner w.e.f. 13.5.2000 on the basis of aforesaid enquiry report is also not
sustainable and is hereby set aside and quashed.
20. On behalf of petitioner, it was argued that no suspension allowance was paid to him
during enquiry. But in the light of facts of the case, the petitioner was not entitled to any suspension
allowance as he was not suspended and there is no evidence on record to show that after 1.11.1999,
he had attended his duties. As per record, the petitioner remained absent w.e.f. 1.11.1999 till he was
terminated on 13.5.2000. So, for the aforesaid reason in the absence of any suspension order, the
petitioner is not entitled to the suspension allowance.
21. The petitioner also argued that his termination was in violation of section 33(2)-b of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as at that time his demand notice dated 6.10.1999 was pending. The
copy of demand notice Ex. P/2 is produced on record which is revealing that it was submitted from
President and General Secretary of the workers union regarding the working conditions of
workmen. There is nothing in it to show that specific demand pertaining to the petitioner was also
mentioned. On the top of it, there is nothing on record to show that said demand notice was pending
before Conciliation Officer when the termination orders of petitioner were issued. The petitioner
did not produce the relevant record from the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer to prove said
allegation. Hence, in the absence of any evidence in this regard, the violation of section 33 (2)-b of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not proved.
22. However, for the reasons discussed hereinabove, the termination of services of
petitioner w.e.f. 13.5.2000 is no sustainable under law being against the principles of natural
justice. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of petitioner.
1657
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
Issue No. 2 & 4.
23. Both these issues are interlinked and can be disposed of by a single finding.
24. For the reason to be recorded hereinabove while discussing issue no.1, the termination
of services of petitioner w.e.f. 13.5.2000 by the respondent is hereby set aside and the petitioner is
held entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity on the same terms and conditions. The
petitioner is not entitled to the back wages as I find sufficient material on record to suggest that
petitioner is gainfully employed.
25. Although, the respondent has not produced the specific evidence to establish that at the
relevant time the petitioner was gainfully employed but here the cross-examination of petitioner is
relevant wherein he has admitted that he was having kids who are studding in School. At the same
time he has also admitted that he has got landed property. These facts are sufficient to suggest that
the petitioner was having sufficient income. So, it can be safely concluded that after his
termination, the petitioner was gainfully employed. Accordingly, in the light of my aforesaid
discussion, issue No.1 is answered in favour of petitioner whereas issue no.4 is answered in favour
of respondent.
Issue No. 3
25. From the careful perusal of the record, there is nothing to suggest that the petition in
the present form is not maintainable. Hence, this issue is decided against the respondent.
RELIEF
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the claim of the petitioner is allowed and as such the
termination of services of petitioner w.e.f. 13.5.2000 by the respondent is set aside and the
petitioner is ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity on the same terms and conditions.
The petitioner is not entitled to the back wages. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate
government for publication in official gazette. File, after completion, be consigned to records.
Announced in the open court today on this 6th day of December, 2012.
By order,
Sd/-
Presiding Judge,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Shimla.
_______
IN THE COURT OF PURENDER VAIDYA, PRESIDING JUDGE, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA, (H.P.)
Ref. No. 285 of 2002
Instituted on. 16.9.2002.
Decided on 06.12.2012.
Rajesh Sharma S/o Shri Braham Dutt, though J.C Bhardwaj, President HP AITUC H.Q
Saproon Solan, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Vs.
The Vice President, Joyco India Ltd., Village Katha, P.O Baddi, District Solan 173205.
..Respondent.
1658
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For petitioner : Shri J.C Bhardwaj, AR.
For respondent : Shri Rajeev Sharma, Advocate.
AWARD
The following reference has been received from appropriate government for adjudication:
“Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by M/s Joyco India Ltd., Baddi District Solan,
H.P against Shri Rajesh Sharma S/o Shri Brahm Dutt workman and termination of his
services w.e.f. 13.5.2000 on the basis of enquiry report is fair and justified? If not what
relief of service benefits including seniority and back wages the above workman is entitled
to? ”
2. The petitioner has filed the claim petition on the ground that he was serving in the
respondent establishment since 22.3.1996. The workmen had filed a demand notice dated
6.10.1999 which was pending for adjudication. Despite the pendency of demand notice, the
respondent illegally terminated the services of petitioner w.e.f. 13.5.2000 on the basis of one-sided
illegal enquiry. In fact, the respondent did not inform the petitioner about the initiation of enquiry
as well as appointment of enquiry officer. During the pendency of enquiry, no suspension
allowance was paid to the petitioner. The chargesheet was not served upon the petitioner and before
terminating his services proper service of show cause notice was not effected upon him. Before the
initiation of enquiry, the petitioner was not supplied with the copy of documents relied upon by the
enquiry officer, hence, the enquiry was conducted against the principles of natural justice. The
petitioner also challenged his termination on the ground that it was in violation of section 33(2)-b
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in view of pendency of demand notice dated 6.10.1999. Hence,
petitioner prayed to set aside his termination orders and to reinstate him with all consequential
benefits.
3. The respondent contested the claim of petitioner by filing a reply wherein preliminary
objections as to maintainability of the petition and suppression of material facts by the petitioner
were raised. On merits, the respondent admitted that the petitioner was employee of the respondent.
However, it was further stated that the petitioner indulged in grave misconduct during the course of
his employment. In fact, petitioner remained absent from duty without any sanctioned leave w.e.f.
1.11.1999. On 11.11.1999, the respondent management had issued notice to the petitioner asking
him to attend the duties, but in vain. The respondent management again issued a show cause notice
dated 24.11.1999 to the petitioner asking him to resume his duties. When petitioner did not join his
duties, then chargesheet dated 1.12.1999 was issued to him and he was asked to file the reply
within stipulated time, but petitioner did not file any reply. Consequently, shri R.K Soni was
appointed as an enquiry officer and he conducted the enquiry as per the principles of natural justice.
The petitioner attended one hearing of enquiry and thereafter chose to remain absent, so exparte
proceedings in enquiry were conducted and charges against the petitioner were proved.
Consequently, show cause notice was issue to the petitioner informing him that the respondent
intended to impose penalty of dismissal. The petitioner was asked to file the reply but again
petitioner did not file any reply. The enquiry report was also sent to the petitioner, hence, petitioner
was legally terminated from service in the light of legal and valid enquiry report. The respondent
also stated that the petitioner was gainfully employed, hence, he was not entitled to be reinstated
with consequential service benefits. Hence, respondent prayed for the dismissal of the claim
petition.
4.
Petitioner filed rejoinder wherein he denied all the preliminary objections taken by the
respondent in reply and further reasserted the averments already made in the claim petition.
1659
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed.
1. Whether the petitioner has been illegally terminated from service w.e.f. 13.5.2000
on the basis of enquiry report? If so, its effect?
..OPP.
2. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative to what relief the petitioner is entitled to?
..OPP.
3. Whether the petition in the present form is not maintainable?
..OPR.
4.
Whether the petitioner is gainfully employed? If so, its effect?
..OPR.
5. Relief.
6. The aforesaid issues were read over and explained to both the parties. No other issue
was pressed and claimed. Evidence of both the parties on the aforesaid issues were recorded.
7. I have heard both the parties and gone through the record carefully.
8. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter my findings on the aforesaid issues are as
under:
Issue No. 1 :
Yes.
Issue No. 2 :
Entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity on the same terms and
conditions but without back wages.
Issue No.3 :
No.
Isue No. 4 :
Yes.
Relief. :
Reference answered in negative as the services of petitioner have been illegally
terminated per operative part of award.
REASONS FOR FINDING
Issue No. 1.
9. In the light of arguments of both the parties and material on record, I am of the
considered opinion that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner is not sustainable under law as
to my mind principles of natural justice have been violated. As the result, the termination of
petitioner from service w.e.f. 13.5.2000 is not sustainable under law.
10. Both the parties have led evidence in support of their respective contentions. Petitioner
examined himself in evidence whereas on behalf of respondent four witnesses were examined
including the enquiry officer.
11. It is un-disputed fact that the petitioner was employee of the respondent company and
he was absent from his duties since 1.11.1999. The petitioner in his cross-examination has admitted
this fact that he was absent from duties since 1.11.1999. However, the petitioner has stated that he
was not allowed to enter the gate of the premises by the security. It is also un-disputed fact that for
the aforesaid absence, the petitioner was chargesheeted and was held guilty and consequently he
was terminated from service by the respondent.
12. It is the case of the respondent that a letter dated 11.11.1999 was issued to the
petitioner asking him to attend the duties but this fact could not be proved with the help of evidence
1660
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
on record. Although, RW-3 Hardeep Rana, the Plant Manager of respondent has deposed this fact
but he could not produce the copy of letter dated 11.11.1999 and further it could not be proved by
the respondent that copy of said letter was supplied to the petitioner. This witness has further stated
that on 24.11.1999 respondent company issued show cause notice Ex. PW-3/A to the petitioner
vide postal receipt Ex. RW-3/B. But the service of this show cause notice upon the petitioner is not
duly proved. RW-3 has further stated that on 22.12.1999, the respondent decided to initiate enquiry
against the petitioner vide letter Ex. RW-3/D and R.K Soni was appointed as an enquiry officer.
But again service of this letter upon the petitioner is not proved. So, it is not proved that petitioner
was informed about the appointment of enquiry officer.
13. Ex. RP-1 is the chargesheet dated 1.12.1999 which bears the signature of Manager
P&A of respondent company. It is not proved on record that copy of said chargesheet was supplied
to the petitioner. The statement of petitioner is revealing that no chargesheet was served upon him.
However, he has further stated that the chargesheet was shown to him on the gate of factory and he
had filed the reply of the same but as per respondent witness, the petitioner did not file any reply to
the chargesheet. First of all, burden was upon the respondent to show that the chargesheet was
served upon the petitioner and copy of same was supplied to him but his burden could not be
discharged by the respondent as there is no documentary evidence on record to show that copy of
chargesheet Ex. RP-1 was supplied to the petitioner.
14. The testimony of petitioner is revealing that he was informed about the enquiry on the
factory gate but no written letter was received by him. The respondent has examined RW-4 Rajesh
Kumar, the enquiry officer who has stated that when he was appointed as enquiry officer, he had
issued notice to the petitioner to appear before him but the petitioner did not appear. I do not find
any force in this testimony of enquiry officer. The enquiry officer has placed on record the copies
of proceedings of enquiry Ex. RW-4/A, Ex. RW-4/B and Ex. RW-4/C. These documents are
revealing that the enquiry started on 4.1.2000 and on that day the worker/petitioner was not present.
As discussed hereinabove, there is no notice to the petitioner to appear before enquiry officer on
4.1.2000. These proceedings are revealing that the notice along-with chargesheet was served
through registered post to the petitioner but it was received back unclaimed. This evidence is
sufficient to suggest that the chargesheet and notice was not received by the petitioner. Ex. RW-4/A
is revealing that the enquiry officer had held that he would inform worker/petitioner through
registered post about the next date of enquiry which was 18.1.2000. Ex. RW-4/B is the copy of
proceedings dated 18.1.2000. It is revealing that on said date petitioner appeared before the enquiry
officer. The petitioner has stated in his testimony that on 4.1.2000 he had gone to the place of
enquiry but the enquiry officer did not turn up, so he wrote letters Ex. P/7 and Ex. P/8 to the Vice
President of the respondent company. However, he has admitted that he appeared before the
enquiry officer on 18.1.2000 when he made a written request vide Ex. RP-3 to conduct the enquiry
in Hindi. This fact has been mentioned by the enquiry officer in proceedings dated 18.1.2000, copy
of which is Ex. RW-4/B. These proceedings are revealing that next date of enquiry for evidence
was fixed for 3.2.2000. But these proceedings are not revealing that the enquiry officer had
supplied the documents to the petitioner as well as list of witnesses. In the absence of such
compliance, the principles of natural justice have been violated as the petitioner was unable to
defend himself effectively. The copy of proceedings of enquiry Ex. RW-4/C is revealing that on
3.2.2000 two witnesses were examined who tendered in evidence documents M-I to M-VI but these
documents were not earlier supplied to the petitioner when he appeared before enquiry officer on
18.1.2000.
15. On 18.1.2000, the enquiry officer did not make any efforts to ask the worker/petitioner
whether he intended to appoint any defence assistant. There is nothing on record to show that
opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to appoint defence assistant. The denial of any such
opportunity is also violation of principle of natural justice.
1661
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
16. On behalf of respondent it was argued that after the conclusion of enquiry, show cause
notice was served upon the petitioner along-with copy of enquiry report informing him about the
out-come of enquiry and further petitioner was informed that respondent had decided to dismiss
him. But there is no specific documentary evidence on record to show that in fact the copy of
enquiry report was received by the petitioner and he also received show cause notice. Therefore,
there is no occasion for the petitioner to file reply to enquiry report.
17. The respondent has examined two other witnesses. RW-1 Shri K.R Chauhan and RW-2
Shri Ramesh Gupta to prove the extract of attendance register Ex. RA to Ex. RA-6 and letters Ex.
RA-7 and Ex. RP-6. But these documents would not make the enquiry report a legal and valid
evidence.
18. In the light of my aforesaid discussion, it stands established that prior to the initiation
of enquiry against the petitioner for his absence w.e.f. 1.11.1999, no show cause notice was served
upon him. Further it is also proved that the chargesheet was not supplied to the petitioner. At the
same time, the documents relied upon by the enquiry officer during enquiry were not supplied to
the petitioner. The petitioner was not supplied with the list of witnesses by the enquiry officer. Here
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2011-II-LLJ-627 (SC) is relevant wherein it
has been held that:
“It was a settled principle of natural justice that if any material was to be relied in
departmental proceedings, a copy of the same must be supplied to the charge sheeted
employee so that he might have a chance to rebut the same.”
19. Further, it also stands established that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to
appoint defence assistant. All these established facts are sufficient to hold that the enquiry was not
conducted in fair and proper manner as the opportunity of being heard was denied to the petitioner.
This resulted into violation of principles of natural justice. As the result, the enquiry report Ex.
RW-3/E is not sustainable under law and liable to set aside. Consequently, the termination of
services of petitioner w.e.f. 13.5.2000 on the basis of aforesaid enquiry report is also not
sustainable and is hereby set aside and quashed.
20. On behalf of petitioner, it was argued that no suspension allowance was paid to him
during enquiry. But in the light of facts of the case, the petitioner was not entitled to any suspension
allowance as he was not suspended and there is no evidence on record to show that after 1.11.1999,
he had attended his duties. As per record, the petitioner remained absent w.e.f. 1.11.1999 till he was
terminated on 13.5.2000. So, for the aforesaid reason in the absence of any suspension order, the
petitioner is not entitled to the suspension allowance.
21. The petitioner also argued that his termination was in violation of section 33(2)-b of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as at that time his demand notice dated 6.10.1999 was pending. The
copy of demand notice Ex. P/2 is produced on record which is revealing that it was submitted from
President and General Secretary of the workers union regarding the working conditions of
workmen. There is nothing in it to show that specific demand pertaining to the petitioner was also
mentioned. On the top of it, there is nothing on record to show that said demand notice was pending
before Conciliation Officer when the termination orders of petitioner were issued. The petitioner
did not produce the relevant record from the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer to prove said
allegation. Hence, in the absence of any evidence in this regard, the violation of section 33 (2)-b of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not proved.
1662
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
22. However, for the reasons discussed hereinabove, the termination of services of
petitioner w.e.f. 13.5.2000 is no sustainable under law being against the principles of natural
justice. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of petitioner.
Issue No. 2 & 4.
23. Both these issues are interlinked and can be disposed of by a single finding. 24. For the
reason to be recorded hereinabove while discussing issue no.1, the termination of services of
petitioner w.e.f. 13.5.2000 by the respondent is hereby set aside and the petitioner is held entitled to
be reinstated in service with continuity on the same terms and conditions. The petitioner is not
entitled to the back wages as I find sufficient material on record to suggest that petitioner is
gainfully employed.
25. Although, the respondent has not produced the specific evidence to establish that at the
relevant time the petitioner was gainfully employed but here the cross-examination of petitioner is
relevant wherein he has admitted that he got married in 2001 and his Children are studding in
Private School. He has further stated that he has got landed property also. This is sufficient to
suggest that after his termination w.e.f. 13.5.2000, the petitioner was gainfully employed that is
why he got married and provided education to his children’s in a Private School. Accordingly, in
the light of my aforesaid discussion, issue no.1 is answered in favour of petitioner whereas issue
No. 4 is answered in favour of respondent.
[
Issue No. 3
25. From the careful perusal of the record, there is nothing to suggest that the petition in
the present form is not maintainable. Hence, this issue is decided against the respondent.
RELIEF
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the claim of the petitioner is allowed and as such the
termination of services of petitioner w.e.f. 13.5.2000 by the respondent is set aside and the
petitioner is ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity on the same terms and conditions.
The petitioner is not entitled to the back wages. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate
government for publication in official gazette. File, after completion, be consigned to records.
Announced in the open court today on this 6th day of December, 2012.
By order,
Sd/-
Presiding Judge,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Shimla.
__________
IN THE COURT OF PURENDER VAIDYA, PRESIDING JUDGE, INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA, (H.P.)
Ref. No. 51 of 2007
Instituted on. 25.6.2007.
Decided on 06.12.2012.
Nagin Chand S/o Shri Gulaba Ram R/o Village Gyana, P.O Mangoo, Tehsil Arki, District
Solan, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Vs.
1663
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
1. Senior Joint Deputy Chairman, M/s Gujrat Ambuja Cement (Unit Himachal) P.O
Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P.
2. Krishan Kumar Rajgaria (Contractor) C/o M/s Gujrat Ambuja Cement (Unit Himachal)
P.O Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P.
..Respondents.
Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For petitioner : Shri Virender Singh, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : Shri Peeyush Verma, Advocate.
For respondent No.2 : None.
AWARD
The following reference has been received from appropriate government for adjudication:
“Whether the termination of services of Shri Nagin Chand S/o Shri Gulaba Ram ex- driver
by the management of M/s Gujrat Ambuja Cement (Unit Himachal) P.O Darlaghat, Tehsil
Arki, District Solan, H.P. (2) Shri Krishan Kumar Rajgaria (Contractor) C/o M/s Gujrat
Ambuja Cement (Unit Himachal) P.O Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P. w.e.f.
3.4.2004 without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as alleged
by the workman is proper and justified? If not what relief of service benefits and amount of
compensation the above aggrieved workman is entitled to? ”
2. The petitioner has filed the claim stating that he was engaged as driver by the
respondents on 18.1.1999 and he did his duties continuously till 3.4.2004 when his services were
wrongly terminated without any notice. Petitioner stated that he completed 240 days in the
preceding twelve months. Therefore, he challenged his termination on the ground that it was
against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As the result, petitioner prayed to set aside
his termination and he be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.
3. Respondent no.1 filed reply wherein preliminary objections as to locus standi, cause of
action, supersession of material facts, estoppel and no relationship of employer and employee
between the parties were taken. On merits, respondent no.1 denied that the petitioner was engaged
as driver on 18.1.1999 and he worked under the replying respondent till 3.4.2004. It was also
denied that the petitioner had completed 240 days in the preceding calendar year under the replying
respondent. It was stated that some time the contractor used to employ the workmen but replying
respondent was having no concern with those workmen employed by the contractor. Hence,
respondent no.1 prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition.
4. Petitioner filed rejoinder wherein he denied all the preliminary objections taken by the
respondent in reply and further reasserted the averments already made in the claim petition.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed.
1. Whether the termination of services of petitioner by the management of Gujrat
Ambuja Cement, Darlaghat and Shri Krishan Kumar Rajgaria contractor w.e.f.
3.4.2004 without complying the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is
improper and unjustified as alleged?
..OPP.
1664
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
2. If issue no.1 is proved to what relief of service benefits the petitioner is entitled
to?
..OPP.
3. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file and maintain his case?
..OPR.
4. Whether the petitioner is estopped to file the present petition by his own act,
conduct and deeds?
..OPR.
5. Whether there is no employee-employer relationship between the petitioner and
replying respondent?
..OPR.
6. Relief.
6. The aforesaid issues were read over and explained to both the parties. No other issue
was pressed and claimed. Evidence of both the parties on the aforesaid issues were recorded.
7. I have heard both the parties and gone through the record carefully.
8. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter my findings on the aforesaid issues are as
under:
Issue No. 1 :
Partly yes.
Issue No.2 :
Entitled to reinstatement in service by respondent No.
2 with seniority and
continuity but without back wages.
Issue No. 3 :
Partly no.
Issue No. 4 :
No.
Issue No. 5 :
Partly yes.
Relief. :
Reference answered in negative as the services of petitioner have been illegally
terminated by respondent no.2 per operative part of award.
REASONS FOR FINDING
Issue No. 1 & 5.
9. Both these issues are interlinked and can be disposed of by a single finding.
10. After hearing both the parties and going through the record carefully, I find sufficient
evidence on record to establish that the petitioner was engaged as driver by respondent no.2. There
is no evidence to establish that petitioner was directly engaged by respondent no.1. Therefore, there
is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and respondent No.1.
11. The petitioner has stepped into the witness box as PW-1. He has stated that he used to
ply vehicle of respondent no.1 bearing no. HP 51- 1239. He also produced the log book of the
vehicle Ex. PA. He also stated that he was removed from service by respondent no.1 without any
notice and payment of compensation. In his cross-examination, he has stated that no appointment
letter was issued to him by respondent no.1. He has also stated that his wages were being paid by
the respondent No. 2. His testimony is also revealing that his driving test was conducted by one
Kamal Kumar through respondent No. 2.
12. The petitioner did not produce his appointment leter issued by respondent no.1. The
log-book of vehicle no. HP 51- 1239 Ex. PA would not make petitioner employee of respondent
1665
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
no.1. In the light of aforesaid testimony of petitioner, I have no hesitation to hold that he was
appointed by respondent No. 2 and it was respondent no.2 who used to pay wages to the petitioner.
Therefore, petitioner was employee of respondent no.2 and he was never engaged by respondent
No.1. As the result, I find substance in the objection taken by respondent No.1 that there was no
relationship of employer and employee between petitioner and respondent No.1.
13. On behalf of petitioner strong reliance was made on the testimony of PW-2 Gian
Chand Verma, the Assistant from the office of P.F Commissioner who proved the EPF slips Ex.
PW-2/A and Ex. PW-2/B of the petitioner. These EPF slips are revealing the name of employer to
be Gujrat Ambuja Cement Ltd. But to my mind, this fact alone would not make the petitioner
employee of respondent no.1 i.e Gujrat Cement Ltd. Here the cross-examination of PW-2 is
relevant. He has stated in his cross-examination that EPF slips Ex. PW-2/A and Ex. PW-2/B fall
under the sub code head. He has also admitted that the subscription of employee of Gujrat Ambuja
Cement is deducted under the PF head whereas the subscription of employee of contractor used to
be deduced under the PF sub head code. He has further clarified that initially there was no separate
code for the contractors. It was only for the last 5/6 years, the separate code was given to
contractors. Therefore, the testimony of this witness is specific evidence to show that in fact the
EPF subscription of petitioner was deducted under sub code which was issued in favour of
contractor of respondent No.1.
14. Therefore, in the light aforesaid evidence, it is hereby held that the petitioner was
employee of respondent No.2 who was the contractor. In the regard, I am in agreement with the
testimony of RW-1 Sunil Kumar, Assistant Manager of respondent No.1. He has categorically
stated that the petitioner was employed by the contractor to whom the sub code was allotted by the
Provident Fund Commissioner.
15. The respondent No. 2 has not contested the claim of the petitioner and there is no
evidence on behalf of respondent No.2. The evidence on record go unrebutted against respondent
No. 2. For the aforesaid reasons, it stands established that the petitioner was engaged by respondent
No.2. The petitioner has categorically deposed that he worked on daily wages from 19.1.1999 till
3.4.2004 when his services were wrongly terminated. That means during the preceding year from
3.4.2004, the petitioner worked for 240 days, hence, before terminating his services, the respondent
No. 2 was legally required to serve a notice upon the petitioner or to pay one month’s wages and
compensation to the petitioner in lieu of such notice as envisaged under section 25-F of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. No such steps were taken by the respondent before terminating the services of
petitioner. Hence, the termination of petitioner is against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 and liable to set aside.
16. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons issue no.1 is partly answered in favour of
petitioner whereas issue No. 5 is also partly answered in favour of respondents.
Issue No. 2.
17. For the reason to be recorded hereinabove while deciding issue no.1 and 5, the services
of petitioner have been wrongly and illegally terminated by respondent No. 2, so, he is entitled to
be reinstated in service with seniority and continuity. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of
the case, the petitioner is not entitled to back wages. Hence, this issue is ansered in favour of
petitioner.
Issue No. 3
18. For the reason to the recoded hereinabove while deciding issue no.1 and 5, the present
petition is not maintainable against respondent No.1 as there is no relationship of employer and
1666
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
employee between respondent no.1 and petitioner. So, petitioner has no locus standi to file and
maintain the petition against respondent No. 1. As far as respondent no.2 is concerned, the
petitioner was engaged by respondent No. 2 and he has been wrongly terminated by respondent No.
2, therefore, petitioner has got locus standi to file and maintain the petition against respondent no.2.
Consequently, this issue is partly answered in favour of respondents.
Issue No. 4
19. I do not find any specific evidence on record to show that the petitioner is estopped to
file the present petition by his own acts, conduct and deeds. In the absence of specific evidence this
issue is answered against respondents.
RELIEF
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the claim of the petitioner is allowed against
respondent no.2 and as such the termination of services of petitioner by respondent no.2 w.e.f.
3.4.2004 is set aside and the petitioner is ordered to be reinstated in service with seniority and
continuity but without back wages. The reference is decided accordingly in negative against the
respondent no.2 only. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for
publication in official gazette. File, after completion, be consigned to records.
Announced in the open court today on this 6th day of December, 2012.
By order,
Sd/-
Presiding Judge,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Shimla.
________
IN THE COURT OF PURENDER VAIDYA, PRESIDING JUDGE, INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA, (H.P).
Ref . No. 40 of 2010
Instituted on. 12.4.2010.
Decided on 05.12.2012.
Rajesh Kumar Dass S/o Shri Arjun Dass C/o Shri Avtar Singh Chandel, Village
Kishanpura, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.
. .Petitioner.
Vs.
The General Manager, M/s Isoloyed Engineering Technologies Ltd. Kishanpura, District
Solan, H.P.
. .Respondent.
Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For petitioner : None.
For respondent : Shri Sandeep Dutta, Advocate.
1667
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
AWARD
The following reference has been received from appropriate government for adjudication:
“Whether the termination of services of Shri Rajesh Kuamr Dass S/o Shri Arjun
Dass by the management of M/s Isoloyed Engineering Technologies Ltd. Kishanpura,
District Solan, H.P. w.e.f. 30.6.2008 without complying the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not what relief of service benefits including
seniority and compensation the aggrieved workman is entitled to? ”
2. The copy of aforesaid reference was also sent to the petitioner/workman Rajesh Kumar
Dass by the Labour Commissioner, H.P. Initially Shri Niranjan Verma, Advocate appeared on
behalf of petitioner and availed opportunities to file claim petition. After having availed so many
opportunities, petitioner failed to file any claim petition, hence, my Ld. Predecessor held to dispose
of the reference on merits. The case was listed to file reply by respondent. Accordingly, respondent
filed reply and stated that the demand raised by the petitioner was incorrect. In fact the petitioner
was on probation and joined the duties with respondent on 30.6.2007. But the petitioner was in the
habit of remaining absent without any sanctioned leave. So, the respondent on 30.6.2008
terminated the services of petitioner and offered him his full & final dues. The petitioner refused to
receive the same. For the absence of petitioner there was no medical certificate or any request for
leave from his side. Consequently, respondent prayed to decide the reference against the petitioner.
3. Since the petitioner has not filed any claim petition and also not led any evidence,
therefore, it could not be held that the respondent had terminated the services of petitioner on
30.6.2008 without complying the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, petitioner is
not entitled to any relief of service benefits from this Court. Consequently, the reference is decided
in affirmative. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for publication in
official gazette. File, after completion, be consigned to records.
Announced in the open court today on this 5th day of December, 2012.
By order,
Sd/-
Presiding Judge,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla.
__________
IN THE COURT OF PURENDER VAIDYA, PRESIDING JUDGE, INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA, (H.P).
Ref. No. 60 of 2010
Instituted on. 1.5.2010.
Decided on 11.12.2012.
Raj Kumar S/o Shri Sohan Lal C/o Shri Om Dutt Sharma R/o Village and P.O Taksal,
Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P.
. .Petitioner.
Vs.
The Factory Manager, M/s Anand Aircon Private Ltd. Plot No. 26, Sector-5, Parwanoo,
Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P.
. .Respondent.
1668
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For petitioner : Shri Niranjan Verma, Advocate
For respondent : Already exparte.
AWARD
The following reference has been received from appropriate government for adjudication:
“Whether the verbal termination of the services of Shri Raj Kumar S/o Shri Sohan
Lal by the Factory Manager, M/s Anand Aircon Private Ltd. Plot No. 26, Sector-5,
Parwanoo, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. w.e.f. 13.1.2009 without serving him
chargesheet, without holding enquiry and without complying the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is proper and justified? If not to what back wages, seniority,
service benefits and relief the above aggrieved workman is entitled to? ”
2. The petitioner has filed the claim stating that he was working as an operator in the
respondent company since January, 2007 and worked till 13.1.2009 when his services were
illegally terminated by the M.D/ Factory Manager of the respondent. The petitioner was retrenched
without complying with the mandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence,
petitioner filed the claim petition with the prayer to reinstate him with all consequential benefits.
3. The respondent was served but none appeared on behalf of respondent. Consequently,
respondent was proceeded against exparte. Thereafter, the case was fixed for exparte evidence of
petitioner.
4. As per record, 2.12.2010 was the first opportunity for petitioner to produce exparte
evidence. However, on 2.12.2012, my Learned Predecessor was on leave, hence, the case was fixed
for proper order for 3.1.2010 when my Learned Predecessor was on tour. Consequently, on
9.5.2011 was the first effective opportunity for the petitioner to produce exparte evidence. Since
then till 11.12.2012, petitioner availed as many as nine effective opportunities to lead exparte
evidence. On 11.12.2012, neither petitioner nor any evidence was present. However, Ld. Counsel
for petitioner prayed for another opportunity which was rejected by this Court after due
consideration, since, petitioner availed more than sufficient opportunities. As the result, the
petitioner evidence was closed by the order of Court.
5. Since, there was no evidence on behalf of petitioner in support of his claim, therefore,
it cannot be held that he was illegally terminated by the respondent on 13.1.2009 without
complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the claim petition filed by
the petitioner is dismissed and the reference is answered in affirmative and against the petitioner.
Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief of service benefits from this Court. Let a
copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for publication in official gazette. File,
after completion, be consigned to records.
Announced in the open court today on this 11th day of December, 2012.
By order,
Sd/-
Presiding Judge,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla.
1669
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
Ref. 59/2011
Sh Mohan Singh V/s M/s Daimand Products Ltd Sirmour
18.12.2012:-
Present:-
Petitioner in person.
Sh Gajinder Sharma, manager ,HR for the respondent.
The following reference has been received from appropriate government for adjudication.
“Whether termination of the services of Shri Mohan Singh S/o Shri Kidu Ram
Village devni (Moginad)P.O KalaAmb, tehsil Nahan District Sirmour, H.P. w.e.f,27th
May,2008 by he management of M/s Daimand Products Ltd. Village devni
(Moginad)P.O KalaAmb, tehsil Nahan District Sirmour,H.P.without issuing
chargesheet, without conducting enquiry and without complying with the provisions
ofIndustrial Disputes Act,1947 is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back
wages, seniorit, past services benefits, the above worker is entitled to from the above
employer?”
In order to adjudicate the aforesaid reference, the petitioner availed opportunities to file the
claim petition. However, today, the petitioner disclosed that the dispute has been amicably settled
by the parties. On behalf of respondentShri Gajinder Sharma, Manager HR disclosed that the
petitioner has left the job and now he is doing job somewhere else and for the job done by the
petitioner under respondent, the respondent is ready to pay wages thereof in lump sum. The
respondent handed over a cheque of SBI Kala Amb amounting to Rs.2589/-(Rs Two thousand five
hundred eighty nine only) to the petitioner which was accepted by him. To this effect, statement of
petitioner recorded wherein he admitted the aforesaid amount to be his full& final payment. In the
light of aforesaid settlement, he prayed to decide the reference accordingly. Since , the dispute has
been amicably settled and the petitioner has received full& final payment from the respondent, the
reference stands amicably settled and decided accordingly. Now , the petitioner is not entitled to
any relief from the respondent in any manner whatsoever. Let a copy of this award be sent to the
appropriate government for publication in the official gazette. File , after completion, be consigned
to records.
Announced:
18.12.2012
By order,
Sd/-
Presiding Judge
Labour Court, Shimla.
_________
IN THE COURT OF PURENDER VAIDYA, PRESIDING JUDGE, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA, (H.P)
Ref . No. 33 of 2008
Instituted on. 30.6.2008.
Decided on 06.12.2012.
Brij Lal S/o Shri Khajana Ram R/o Village Bughar, P.O Chakkar, Tehsil Arki, District
Solan, H.P.
. .Petitioner.
1670
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
Vs.
1. The Ambuja-Darla-Kashlog-Mangoo Transport Co-operative Society Ltd., Darlaghat,
Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P.
2. M/s Ambuja Cement through its Manager, Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P.
. . Respondents.
Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For petitioner :
Shri Vijay Sharma, Advocate
For respondent No. 1 : Ex-parte.
For respondent No. 2 : Shri Peeyush Verma, Advocate.
AWARD
The following reference has been received from appropriate government for adjudication:
“Whether the termination of services of Shri Brij Lal S/o Shri Khajana Ram by the
management of The Ambuja-Darla-Kashlog-Mangoo Transport Cooperative Society
Ltd., Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P. w.e.f. 31.8.2006 without complying
the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not what
relief of seniority, back wages and other service benefits the above workman is entitled
to? ”
2. The petitioner has filed the claim stating that he was working as booking clerk with the
respondent no.1 w.e.f. 3.3.2004. The petitioner further stated that respondent no.1 was working
under the administrative as well as financial control of respondent no.2. The respondents
terminated the services of petitioner on 31.8.2006 without following any procedure and against the
provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, petitioner prayed to set aside his termination
and further prayed that he be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.
3. Respondent no.1 was served and initially put appearance through Advocate Shri
Sanjeev Bhushan. However, subsequently none appeared for respondent No.1, consequently,
respondent no.1 proceeded against ex-parte.
4. Respondent no.2 filed reply wherein preliminary objections as to locus standi,
maintainability, supersession of material facts by the petitioner, estoppel and mis-joinder of parties
were raised. On merits, respondent no.2 stated that there was no relationship of employer and
employee between the parties as the petitioner was never engaged by respondent no.2. So, there
was no question of retrenchment of services of petitioner by respondent no.2. Hence, respondent
No. 2 prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition.
5. No rejoinder was filed by the petitioner. On the pleadings of the parties, the following
issues were framed.
1. Whether the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 31.8.2008 have been terminated by
the management of the Ambuja-Darla-Kashlog-Mangoo Transport Co-operative
Society Ltd., Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, in an illegal and unjustified
manner without complying the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as
alleged?
. . OPP.
1671
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
2. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative to what service benefits the petitioner is
entitled to and from whom?
. . OPP.
3. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi against respondent No. 2 as alleged?
. . OPR-2.
4. Whether the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable?
. . OPR-2.
5. Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing this petition against respondent
No. 2?
. . OPR-2.
6. Relief.
6. The aforesaid issues were read over and explained to both the parties. No other issue
was pressed and claimed. Evidence of both the parties on the aforesaid issues were recorded.
7. I have heard both the parties and gone through the record carefully.
8. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter my findings on the aforesaid issues are as
under:
Issue No. 1 : Partly yes.
Issue No. 2 : Entitled to reinstatement in service by respondent no.1 with seniority and continuity
but without back wages.
Issue No. 3 : Yes
Issue No. 4 : Yes
Issue No. 5 : No
Relief. :
Reference answered in negative as the services of petitioner have been illegally
terminated by respondent no.1 per operative part of award.
Reasons for finding
Issue No. 1.
9. In the light of arguments of both the parties and material on record, I find sufficient
evidence to establish that the petitioner was engaged by respondent No.1 and his services were
illegally terminated by respondent No.1. There is no relationship of employer and employee
between respondent No. 2 and the petitioner.
10. The petitioner has stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and he has categorically
deposed that he was working as booking clerk with respondent no.1 society since 3.3.2004. In his
cross-examination, he has admitted that he was never engaged by respondent no.2. He has also
admitted that he did not file any claim against respondent no.2. This specific testimony of petitioner
is sufficient to establish that he was employee of respondent no.1 and was never engaged by
respondent No. 2.
11. The petitioner has categorically stated that he worked continuously w.e.f. 3.3.2004 to
31.8.2006 when his services were wrongly and illegally terminated. This testimony of petitioner
has gone un-rebutted against respondent No.1 who is the employer of the petitioner. The petitioner
has also stated that no notice was served upon his before terminating his services.
12. The aforesaid testimony of petitioner is making it clear that he has worked for 240
days in the preceding year from 31.8.2006. Therefore, his employer i.e respondent no.1 was under
1672
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
the legal obligation to serve a notice upon the petitioner or to pay one month’s wages and
compensation to the petitioner in lieu of such notice as envisaged under section 25-F of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
No such steps were taken by the respondent no.1 before terminating the services of
petitioner. Hence, the termination of petitioner by respondent no.1 w.e.f. 31.8.2008 is against the
provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and liable to set aside. Here, Ld. Counsel for petitioner
rightly relied upon the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of (2010) 5
SCC- 497.
13. Though, the petitioner has alleged that respondent No. 1 was under the administrative
and financial control of respondent no.2. But to this effect, I do not find any evidence on record.
Moreover, this plea is not tenable, because respondent no.1 is a co-operative society and it is an
independent body. It cannot be believed that a co-operative society being an independent body
would be under the administrative and financial control of M/s Ambuja Cement Ltd., which is also
another independent body being a company.
14. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons issue No. 1 is partly answered in favour of
petitioner.
Issue No. 2.
15. For the reason to be recorded hereinabove while deciding issue No. 1, the services of
petitioner have been wrongly and illegally terminated by respondent no.1, so, he is entitled to be
reinstated in service with seniority and continuity. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the
case, the petitioner is not entitled to back wages. Hence, this issue is answered in favour of
petitioner.
Issue No. 3 & 4.
16. Both these issues are interlinked and can be disposed of by a single finding. For the
reason recoded hereinabove while deciding issue no.1, there is no relationship of employer and
employee between respondent no.2 and the petitioner as the petitioner has himself has admitted that
he was not engaged by respondent no.2. So, petitioner has no locus standi to file and maintain the
petition against respondent no.2 and the claim petition filed by petitioner is not maintainable
against respondent no.2. Consequently, both these issues are answered in favour of respondent
No. 2.
Issue No. 5
17. I do not find any specific evidence on record to show that the petitioner is estopped to
file the present petition by his own acts, conduct and deeds. In the absence of specific evidence this
issue is answered against respondents.
Relief
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the claim of the petitioner is allowed against
respondent no.1 and as such the termination of services of petitioner by respondent no.1 w.e.f.
31.8.2006 is set aside and the petitioner is ordered to be reinstated in service with seniority and
continuity but without back wages. The reference is decided accordingly in negative against the
respondent No. 1 only. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for
publication in official gazette. File, after completion, be consigned to records.
1673
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
Announced in the open court today on this 6th day of December, 2012.
By order,
Sd/-
Presiding Judge,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Shimla.
_________
Ref No. 33/2011
Smt. Suman Bala v/s M/s Shivalik Agro poly products & others.
3.12.2012
Present :
None for petitioner.
Shri Paritosh Sharma, Advocate vice csl. for respondent.
Since none is present for petitioner, therefore, Ld. Vice csl. for respondent prayed that the
refrence be decided against the petitioner as on behalf of petitioner no claim was filed and she did
not lead any evidence in order to hold that her service were wrongly and ilegaly terminated by her
employer. Heard. I have also gone through the record carefuly. The folowing reference was
received from appropriate government for adjudication: “Whether Smt. Suman Bala W/o Shri
Balbir Kumar has worked with M/s Shivalik Agro Poly Product Ltd., Plot no. 1-A, Sector-3,
Parwanoo, District Solan, M/s Recket Banckiser India Plot no.1, Sector-3, Parwanoo, District Solan
and M/s Trinetra Services, Parwanoo, District Solan, w.e.f. 26.4.2004 to 16.9.2008 as aleged in her
demand notice dated 5.12.2008 (copy enclosed ) ? If yes, whether termination of her services by the
above employers/management w.e.f. 16.9.2009 without isuing chargesheet, without conducting
enquiry and without folowing the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and
justified? If not, to what back wages, service benefits and relief the above named worker is entitled
to from the above employers/management?” The copy of aforesaid reference was also sent to the
petitioner/workman Suman Bala by the Labour Commisioner, H.P. Even after receiving the
reference in this Court, notice was isued to her. After receiving notice, she did not put appearance,
therefore, the reference was fixed for further orders to be disposed of on merits. This fact is clear
from record. After due consideration, I am in agreement/ submisions made by the Ld. Vice Csl. for
respondent to decide the reference against the workman/employ Smt. Suman Bala as she did not
put appearance in the Court and did not file any claim petition in support of her contention. In the
absence of any claim petition and evidence in support thereof, it cannot be held that the services of
petitioner/ workman w.e.f. 16.9.2009 have been ilegaly and wrongly terminated by M/s Shivalik
Agro Poly Product Ltd., Plot no. 1-A, Sector-3, Parwanoo, District Solan, M/s Trinetra Services,
Parwanoo, District Solan. Hence the reference is decided accordingly against Smt. Suman Bala and
as such she is not entitled to any relief from this Court. Let a copy of this award be sent to the
approprite government for publication in the official gazzette. File, after completion, be consigned
to records.
Announced :
By order,
3/12/2012
Sd/-
Presiding Judge,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Shimla.
1674
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
IN THE COURT OF PURENDER VAIDYA, PRESIDING JUDGE, INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNALCUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA, (H.P) CAMP AT SOLAN.
Ref No. 45 of 2007.
Instituted on. 5.6.2007.
Decided on 31.12.2012.
Virender Kumar Sharma S/o late Shri Geeta Ram R/o Village Bitna, P.O Pinjore, Tehsil
Kalka, District Panchkula (Haryana) through Shri J.C Bhardwaj, President HPAITUC, HQ
Saproon, Solan, H.P. . .Petitioner.
Vs.
M/s Raja Forgings & Gears Ltd., Sai Road, Baddi, District Solan, H.P through its Chief
Executive Officer.
. .Respondent.
Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For petitioner : Shri D.K Thakur, Advocate.
For respondent : Shri Ram Rattan Thakur, Advocate.
AWARD
The following reference has been received from appropriate government for adjudication:
“Whether the termination of services w.e.f. 19.7.2005 vide letter dated 19.7.2005
of Shri Virender Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Geeta Ram workman by the management of
M/s Raja Forgings and Gears Ltd., Sai Road Baddi, District Solan after serving him
chargesheet and after holding domestic enquiry is legal and justified? If not what
relief of service benefits and amount of compensation the above aggrieved workman is
entitled to? ”
2. The petitioner has filed the claim petition stating that he was appointed by the
respondent in the year of 1985 and continued till 8.5.2004. However, his termination orders were
issued on 19.7.2005 on the basis of false and fabricated chargesheet. The chargesheet was served
upon the petitioner on 27.9.2004 after his oral termination on 8.5.2004. In fact a reference case no.
323 of 2004 was pending for adjudication but respondent did not obtain the sanction/approval of
the Court before terminating the services of petitioner. Hence, petitioner challenged his termination
orders being violative of section 33-2(b) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Petitioner stated that he
was not allowed by the respondent to enter the gate of factory in order to join his duties on
8.5.2004. On 8.5.2004, no show cause notice was served upon the petitioner and there was no
suspension order. The petitioner was not paid any suspension allowances. On 27.5.2004, the
petitioner served a demand notice upon the petitioner and in order to cover its wrong, the
respondent called the explanation of the petitioner vide letter dated 17.6.2004. The respondent did
not give any reply to the demand notice of the petitioner. The Chief Executive Officer called the
petitioner in his chamber on 8.5.2004 and asked him to submit his resignation after receiving full &
final payment. The respondent offered ` 33,000/- to the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner was
1675
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
asked to not enter the factory gate. Before 27.9.2004, no chargesheet was served upon the
petitioner. Even, the enquiry officer did not carry out the proceedings in accordance with principles
of natural justice. The petitioner was not supplied with the list of witnesses and other documents.
The petitioner was not given opportunity to reply the chargesheet, hence, the entire enquiry was
carried out in a partial and biased manner. As the result, the termination of petitioner on the basis of
said enquiry was illegal, null & void. Consequently, petitioner prayed to set aside his illegal
termination order dated 19.7.2005 and prayed that he be reinstated in service with all consequential
benefits.
3. The respondent contested the claim of petitioner by filing a reply wherein it was
admitted that the petitioner was employed by the respondent. The other allegations made by the
petitioner, were specifically denied. It was denied that there was any violation of section 33-2(b) of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Respondent also denied that the petitioner was not allowed to enter
into the gate of the factory on 8.5.2004. In fact, the petitioner remained absent from his duties. The
petitioner was not terminated on 8.5.2004 but for his absence he was served show cause notice and
thereafter proper chargesheet was served upon him and after holding a legal enquiry his services
were terminated on 19.7.2005. The enquiry was conducted by an independent and impartial person
wherein the petitioner was associated and the entire enquiry proceedings were carried out in the
presence of the petitioner. Consequently, respondent prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition.
4. Petitioner filed rejoinder wherein he denied all the allegations of respondent made in
reply and further reasserted the averments already made in the claim petition.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed.
1. Whether the termination of services of petitioner by the respondent w.e.f.
19.7.2005 after serving chargesheet and after holding domestic enquiry is illegal
and unjustified as alleged?
. .OPP.
2. If issue no.1 is proved to what relief of service benefits and amount of
compensation, the petitioner is entitled to?
. .OPP.
3. Whether the petitioner abandoned the job of his own as alleged? . .OPR.
4. Relief.
6. The aforesaid issues were read over and explained to both the parties. No other issue
was pressed and claimed. Evidence of both the parties on the aforesaid issues were recorded.
7. I have heard both the parties and gone through the record carefully.
8. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter my findings on the aforesaid issues are as
under:
Issue no.1
Yes.
Issue no.2
Entitled to reinstatement in service with seniority and continuity but without
back wages by stopping one increment.
Issue no.3
No.
Relief.
Reference answered in negative as the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is
too harsh per operative part of award.
1676
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
Reasons for finding.
Issue no.1 & 3.
9. Both these issues are interconnected and can be disposed of by a single finding.
10. In the light of arguments of both the parties as well as evidence on record, I am of the
considered opinion that the petitioner remained absent from his duties w.e.f 8.5.2004 without any
intimation to the respondent, therefore, the respondent was justified to initiate disciplinary action
against him.
11. The petitioner has alleged that the entire enquiry against him was one sided and
conducted in a partial manner, therefore, the principles of natural justice were violated. As the
result, the disciplinary proceedings are not sustainable under law. Hence, his termination on the
basis of enquiry report was liable to be set aside.
12. After due consideration, I do not find any legal force in the aforesaid submission of the
petitioner. The petitioner stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and he has deposed all the facts
which have been stated by him in his claim petition. The petitioner has also alleged that on
8.5.2004 when he went to his duties, at 1.00 PM the CEO Shri Sandeep Goel called him and
thereafter he called Shri Pradeep Kumar and Shri B.S Khanna and told them to make the full &
final payment to the petitioner and said amount was approximately to the tune of ` 33,000/-. The
CEO asked him to sign some documents but petitioner refused to sign the same. Consequently, the
petitioner was turned out of the factory gate and thereafter he was not allowed to join his duties
since, 9.5.2004. But to prove these allegations, I do not find sufficient and convincing evidence on
record.
13. The petitioner has examined PW-2 Shri Satish Kumar and PW-3 Shri Brij Mohan in
support of his aforesaid contention. The witness PW-2 had also worked in the factory of respondent
from January, 1996 to December, 2004. Here the cross examination of PW-2 Shri Satish Kumar is
relevant wherein he has admitted that in his presence, the petitioner was never turned out from the
gate of the factory. This witness also admitted that the CEO did not issue any order to the effect
that the petitioner be not allowed to enter the factory premises. Therefore, this specific testimony of
witness of petitioner is sufficient to demolish his claim that he was forcibly turned out from the
gate of factory by CEO and thereafter he was not allowed to join his duties.
14. The other witness of petitioner PW-3 Brij Mohan has stated that he was driver of
Basant Roadways Kalka and the petitioner used to board his bus whenever he used to go to his
duties. This witness has stated that on 8.5.2004, he was told by the petitioner that the factory gate
was closed for him. But as per petitioner himself on 8.5.2004 he had gone to his duties and in the
day time he was called by the CEO and it was on 9.5.2004 when he was not allowed to enter into
the factory gate. Thus, the testimony of PW-3 Brij Mohan is not corroborating the version of
petitioner. This witness has admitted in his cross examination that he was having intimacy with the
petitioner. So, it could be possible that in view of such intimacy, this witness has stated only at the
instance of petitioner in order to give undue benefits to the petitioner. Moreover, this witness did
not produce any record to show that in fact he was driver of the bus in which the petitioner used to
travel in order to go to his duties.
15. On behalf of respondent it is alleged that petitioner himself has abandoned the job. But
this plea stands demolished as the respondent has taken the disciplinary action against the petitioner
for willful absence from duties after 8.5.2004. Moreover, I do not find any convincing evidence on
record to establish that petitioner had abandoned his job.
1677
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
16. On behalf of respondent RW-1 Shri Sandeep Goel was examined who tendered in
evidence relevant record i.e letters Ex. RW-1/A-1 and Ex. RW-1/A-2 and copy of enquiry report
Ex. RW-1/A-3, another letter Ex. RW-1/A-4. He also produced the copy of chargesheet Ex. RW
1/A-5 and zimini orders of the enquiry report Ex. RW-1/A-6. The other witness of respondent, RW
2 Shri Vinod Bansal has stated that the petitioner was working under him and after 8.5.2004 he
remained absent. Thereafter show cause notice was served upon the petitioner and he was
chargesheeted and disciplinary enquiry was conducted against him wherein charges against him
stood proved. RW-3 Shri Balwan Singh another employee of the respondent company also stated
that after 8.5.2004, petitioner did not join his duties. This witness has also stated that he was
deputed on the gate of the factory. There is nothing in his testimony to suggest that after 8.5.2004,
the petitioner was not allowed to enter inside the factory gate. The respondent also examined RW-4
Shri Shyam Sunder the enquiry officer who has stated that he conducted the enquiry as per
procedure established under law and prepared his report, copy of which is Ex. RW-1/A-3. He also
proved the show cause notice Ex. RW-1/A-2. He has been crossexamined by the petitioner but his
credibility could not be shattered. There is nothing on record to show that during enquiry principles
of natural justice have been violated.
17. Thus, the evidence on record proved that the petitioner remained absent from his duties
since 8.5.2004 and for the same show cause notice Ex. PC dated 17.6.2004 was served upon the
petitioner which was replied by him vide Ex. PD wherein he leveled all the allegations against CEO
which have been discussed hereinabove but could not be proved. Thereafter, chargesheet Ex. RW
1/A- 5 was serve d upon the petitioner which was tagged with the documents relied upon by the
management.
18. Although, the petitioner has alleged that he was not supplied with the documents
along-with chargesheet but the proceedings of enquiry Ex. RW- 1/A-6 are revealing that on the first
date of hearing before enquiry officer, the petitioner had admitted that he had received the
chargesheet and documents and he did not want any other documents. These proceedings dated
30.10.2004 bear the signatures of petitioner. Thereafter, in the presence of petitioner as well as his
representative Shri Bayant Singh Chadda, the management witnesses were examined. These
proceedings are further revealing that the copies of proceedings alongwith the statements of
witnesses were supplied to the petitioner. Thereafter, the opportunity was given to the petitioner to
produce his evidence. The petitioner examined his witnesses in defence and thereafter the enquiry
officer heard both the parties and vide his report Ex. RW-1/A-3 held the petitioner guilty for
absence from duty.
19. The evidence on record is revealing that before starting enquiry vide letter Ex. P/R-1
dated 27.9.2004 the petitioner was informed by the respondent about the appointment of enquiry
officer. After receiving the aforesaid enquiry report, the CEO of respondent company has served a
show cause notice Ex. RW- 1/A-2 upon the petitioner vide which he was informed about the
enquiry report. The evidence on record is also revealing that the petitioner submitted his reply to
the said notice and after considering the reply of the petitioner, the respondent terminated his
services vide order dated 9.7.2005 copy of which is Ex. P/R-2. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in
the enquiry conducted against the petitioner. He was given the opportunity of being heard and he
remained associated during entire enquiry. Therefore, it cannot be held that the enquiry was
conducted in a partial manner. Hence, said enquiry report cannot be set aside.
20. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, it is not established that after 8.5.2004, the
petitioner was not allowed to enter into the factory premises. The petitioner in his cross
examination has stated that he did not file any complaint against the respondent that he was not
allowed to enter the factory gate. Therefore, to my mind the enquiry officer has rightly and
correctly appreciated the evidence/record produced during enquiry. Since, the petitioner could not
1678
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
give reasonable explanation for his absence from duty, therefore, he was rightly held liable for
remaining absent from his duties. However, at the same time the testimony of petitioner is
revealing that at the relevant time some strike was going on and a settlement was arrived at
between the management and workman vide mark PB. The respondent witness RW-1 Shri Sandeep
Goel has admitted the settlement copy of which is Ex. RW-1/B dated 8.4.2004. His testimony is
revealing that the dispute regarding the strike was settled. So, after said settlement the petitioner
was not justified to remain absent from his duties w.e.f. 8.5.2004.
21. The petitioner has taken the plea that his termination orders were passed in violation of
section 33-2(b) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On behalf of petitioner it was argued that demand
notice of petitioner was pending and during the pendency of such notice the respondent passed the
termination orders in question. But in support of this allegation, I do not find any evidence on
record. The petitioner could have summoned the relevant record from the office of Conciliation
Officer to show that his demand notice was pending when his termination orders dated 19.7.2005
were passed. In the absence of any evidence in this regard, said plea of petitioner is hereby rejected.
22. Therefore, in the light of my aforesaid discussion, it stands proved that petitioner
remained absent from his duties w.e.f. 8.5.2004 and for the same show cause notice was served
upon him but he could not file any satisfactory reply. Consequently, he was served with
chargesheet and a departmental enquiry was conducted in his presence. The entire enquiry was fair
and in accordance with principles of natural justice wherein his absence from duty stood proved. At
the same time, I am of the opinion that the termination of petitioner from services on the basis of
absence from duty is too harsh punishment and not in consonance with his misconduct. The
punishment imposed upon the petitioner appears to be disproportionate to his misconduct.
23. Hence, in the larger interest of justice, this Court after invoking the provisions under
section 11-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is of the opinion that the orders of termination is not
justified, hence, the same is hereby set aside. The petitioner is liable to be awarded lesser
punishment in lieu of termination keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case. For the
absence from duty, the punishment of termination is not sustainable. Here, I am supported by the
law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of 2008-II LLJ-625 (SC) wherein the order
of Labour Court holding dismissal of workman for absence to be excessive and Hon’ble Supreme
Court has upheld the order of Labour Court by setting aside the dismissal of workman.
24. So, for the aforesaid reasons, the termination order of petitioner dated 19.7.2005 is
hereby set aside. Taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case penalty of
stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is hereby imposed upon the petitioner and he is
entitled to be reinstated in service with seniority and continuity but without back wages.
25. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons issue no.1 is answered in favour of the
petitioner whereas issues no.3 is answered against the respondent.
Issue no.2.
26. For the reason to be recorded hereinabove while deciding issue no.1 & 3, the
termination orders of petitioner dated 19.7.2005 is hereby set aside. However, penalty of stoppage
of one increment with cumulative effect is hereby imposed upon the petitioner and he is ordered to
be reinstated in service forthwith with seniority and continuity but without back wages.
Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of petitioner.
Relief
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the claim of the petitioner is allowed and as such the
termination from service w.e.f. 19.7.2005 the respondent is set aside and the petitioner is ordered to
1679
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
be reintstatement in service with immediate effect with seniority and continuity but without back
wages. However, the stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is hereby imposed upon the
petitioner and as such the reference is decided in negative. Let a copy of this award be sent to the
appropriate government for publication in official gazette. File, after completion, be consigned to
records.
Announced in the open court today on this 31st day of December, 2012.
By order,
Sd/-
Presiding Judge,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Shimla, Camp at Solan.
________
Ref. 54/2011
Sh. Virender Thakur V/s M/s Padmawati Balaji Kasumpti.
20-12-2012
Present :
None for the petitioner,
Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate for respondent.
It is 11.10 AM. Case called thrice but none is present on behalf of petitioner.
Be called after luch.
Presiding Judge,
Labour Court, Shimla.
Case called after lunch.
Present :
None for the petitioner.
Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate for respondent.
Case caled again. It is 2.50 PM but none is present for petitioner. As per record the
petitioner has been served but despite service none is present on behalf of petitioner. The folowing
reference has been received from appropriate government for adjudication:
“Whether the termination of services of Shri Virender Thakur R/o House No. C
19/100, Lower Phagli, Shimla-4, Customer Care Oficer, as per demand notice drawing
wages @ ` 3,000/- per month by the Manager M/s Padmawati Balaji STPI, Kasumpati
Shimla-9 H.P w.e.f. 31.1.2010 without complying with the provisions of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what back wages, service benefits
and relief the above workman is entitled to from the above employer?”
The Labour Commisioner has sent the copy of this reference to petitioner Virender Thakur.
This fact goes to suggest that the petitioner was having knowledge about the present reference.
Today, despite service the petitioner is not present, therefore, it appears that the petitioner has
1680
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
nothing to say against his termination by the respondent. The petitioner did not file any claim
petition as such there is no evidence on behalf of petitioner. Consequently, it cannot be held that the
termination of services of petitioner by the respondent is ilegal and against the provisions of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this Court.
Acordingly, the reference is decided in afirmative and against the petitioner Virender Thakur. Let a
copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for publication in oficial gazete. File, after
completion, be consigned to records.
Announced:
20/12/2012
By order,
Sd/-
Presiding Judge,
Labour Court, Shimla.
__________
In the Court of Shri G. C. Negi, H.A.S., Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shimla (Urban),
District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh
Shri Gautam Bhattacharya s/o Shri Bhola Nath Bhattacharya, r/o Hari Om Bhawan, First
Floor, Comly Bank, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh
.. Applicant.
Versus
General Public
.. Respondent.
Application under section 13 (3) of Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969.
Whereas Shri Gautam Bhattacharya s/o Shri Bhola Nath Bhattacharya, r/o Hari Om
Bhawan, First Floor, Comly Bank, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh has preferred an application
to the undersigned for the registration of death of his mother namely Smt. Kalpna Bhattacharya
whose date of death is 9-4-2005 in the record of Municipal Corporation Shimla.
Therefore, by this proclamation, the general public is hereby informed that any person
having any objection for entry as to date of death mentioned above, may submit his objection in
writing in this court on or before 12-7-2013 failing which no objection will be entertained after
expiry of date and will be decided accordingly.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court on this 13th day of June, 2013.
Seal.
G. C. NEGI,
Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Shimla (Urban), District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
1681
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
In the Court of Shri G. C. Negi, H.A.S., Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shimla (Urban),
District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh
Shri Prem Chand Verma, r/o Deepak Bhawan, Kasumpti, District Shimla, Himachal
Pradesh
.. Applicant.
Versus
General Public
.. Respondent.
Application under section 13 (3) of Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969.
Shri Prem Chand Verma, r/o Deepak Bhawan, Kasumpti, District Shimla, Himachal
Pradesh has preferred an application to the undersigned for the registration of name of his son
namely Gaurav Verma whose date of birth is 27-3-1995 in the record of Municipal Corporation
Shimla.
Therefore, by this proclamation, the general public is hereby informed that any person
having any objection for entry as to date of birth mentioned above, may submit his objection in
writing in this court on or before 12-7-2013 failing which no objection will be entertained after
expiry of date and will be decided accordingly.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court on this 13th day of June, 2013.
Seal.
G. C. NEGI,
Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Shimla (Urban), District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
_________
In the Court of Shri K. S. Chaudhary, Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Collector
Sub-Division Bangana, District Una (H. P.)
Jh dsgj flag vkfn iq=ku Jh fijFkh flag] xkao /kjsr] rglhy caxk.kk] ftyk Åuk fgekpy izns'k
- - vihykFkÊA
cuke
10- xqjnso flag] 11- izhre flag] 12- d'ehj flag] 13- fijFkh pUn] 14- dsljh pUn iq=ku
Jh tSey] 15- rqylh jke] 16- gqDe pUn iq=ku Jh ykyks] 18- eaxr jke iq= Jh 'ksj flag] 19- ujs'k dqekj
iq= o 20- gkdeh nsoh iRuh Lo0 Jh gjh flag] 21- izse flag iq= Jh bUnz flag] 22- lqjsUnz dqekj iq=
Jh 'kadj] 24- y[keh pUn] 25- jktsUnz flag iq=ku o 26- d'kehjh nsoh iq=h o 27- Kkuks nsoh iRuh
Lo0 Jh /keZ flag] 28- vej flag iq= Jh Kku pUn] 29- vej flag iq= Jh Kku pUn Lrs js'kek nsoh iRuh
Lo0 Jh Kku flag] 40- txr jke lqUnj iq= Jh ykyks] 41- vej flag iq= iq= Kku flag Lrs Kku flag
iq= Jh pM+rw] 42- ¼1½ /keZ pUn iq= Jh Qdhjh;k ¼2½ gqDe pUn ¼3½ rqylh iq=ku Jh ykyks Lrs yHkw iq=
Jh ykyw] 43- txr jke] 44- jks'ku yky] 45- ljo.k dqekj iq=ku o 46- iq"ik nsoh 47- Kkuks nsoh]
48- fueZyk nsoh iqf=;ka Jh oh: jke] fuoklh eqgky /kjsr] rIik f<;waxyh] rglhy caxk.kk] ftyk Åuk]
fgekpy izns'k
- - izfr izfroknhx.kA
1682
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 17 twu] 2013@27 T;s"B 1935
vihy vkns'k fnukad 23&5&2012 lgk;d lekgrkZ] rglhy caxk.kk] ftyk Åuk ¼fg0 iz0½ 08@
ih0ch0Vh0@2004 'kh"kZd deZ flag vkfn cuke jRu flag vkfn] xkao /kjsr] rglhy caxk.kk] ftyk Åuk]
fgekpy izns'kA
mijksDr fo"k; ij izfroknhx.k ua0 10 rk 48 dks leu tkjh fd, x, ysfdu rkehy lk/kkj.k
rjhds ls ugha gks ik jgh gSA bl vnkyr dks iw.kZ fo'okl gks pqdk gS fd mDr leLr izfroknhx.k dh
rkehy lk/kkj.k <ax ls ugha gks ldrhA
vr% bl b'rgkj fgekpy izns'k jkti= ds ek/;e ls izfroknhx.k ua0 10 rk 48 dks lwfpr fd;k
tkrk gS fd os fu/kkZfjr frfFk is'kh fnukad 29&6&2013 dks nksigj 2-00 cts bl vnkyr esa vlkyru ;k
odkyru mifLFkr vkdj mDr eqdÌek dh iSjoh djasA gkftj u vkus dh lwjr esa muds fo:) ;drjQk
dk;Zokgh vey esa ykbZ tk,xh rFkk eqdÌek gtk dk fu.kZ; dj fn;k tk,xkA
vkt fnukad 28&5&2013 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr }kjk tkjh fd;k x;kA
eksgjA K. S. CHAUDHARY,
Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Collector
Sub-Division Bangana, District Una (H. P.).
fu;U=d] eqnz.k rFkk ys[ku lkexzh] fgekpy izns'k] f'keyk&5 }kjk eqfnzr rFkk izdkf'kr