jkti=] fgekpy izns'k

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

f”keyk] eaxyokj] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k] 1935

fgekpy izns'k ljdkj

LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-2, 29^th July, 2013

No. Sharm (A) 7-1/2005-1V (Award) Shimla.—In exercise of the powers vested under

section 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Governor Himachal Pradesh is pleased to

order the publication of awards of the following cases announced by the Presiding Officer, Labour

94&jkti=@2013&30&07&2013 ¼2595½

2596

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

Court Shimla on the website of the Department of Labour & Employment of the Government of

Himachal Pradesh:—

Sr.

No.

Case No:

Title of the Case

Date of Award

1.

39/2010

Workers Union V/s The Manager Shivalik Hatcheries

Nalagarh.

28-5-2013

2.

25/2012

Sh. Harender Thakur & Ors V/s M/s Omega electronic

Scale Co. Ltd & Anr.

4-6-2013

3.

3/2012

Miss Nisha Sharma V/s M/s Solan Energy Saving

Products Ltd.

4-6-2013

4

4/2012

Miss Kamla V/s -do-

4-6-2013

5.

2/2012

Miss Kamla V/s -do-

4-6-2013

6.

63/2003

Sh. Ramesh Chand V/s D.F.O Renukaji.

7-6-2013

7.

4/2013

Sh. Gurdyal Singh V/s Product Director Gowthami

Hydro Electric Chiregaon District Shimla.

12-6-2013

8.

3/2013

Sh. Glover Singh V/S -do-

12-6-2013

9.

2/2013

Sh. Sunil Kumar V/s –do-

12-6-2013

10.

1/2009

Sh. Lakshami Nand V/s M/s Asia The Dawn.

21-6-2013

11

41/2011

Sh. Anil Sharma V/s The Manager, M/s Padmavati Balaji

STPI, Kasumpati Shimla-9.

29-6-2013

By order,

Sd/-

Pr. Secretary.

_________

IN THE COURT OF A. S. JASWAL, PRESIDING JUDGE, HP INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA

Ref. No.

:

41 of 2011.

Instituted on

:

1.11.2011.

Decided on

:

29.6.2013.

Anil Sharma R/o Ashwani Niwas, Near Dhalli Tunnel, Shimla-12

. .Petitioner.

VERSUS

The Manager, M/s Padmavati Balaji STPI, Kasumpati Shimla-9.

. .Respondent.

2597

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

AWARD

The reference for adjudication is as under :

“Whether the termination of services of Shri Anil Sharma, Customer Care Officer, as

per demand notice drawing wages @ Rs. 3,000/- per month by the Manager M/s

Padmavati Balaji STPI, Kasumpati Shimla-9 HP w.e.f. 31.1.2010 without complying

with the provisions of the 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?”

Although, the notice has been served upon the petitioner, by way of affixation, as ordered

by this Court, but neither he is present in person nor through counsel. In these circumstances, when

the petitioner has failed to appear before this court, despite service, in order to challenge his

termination of services w.e.f. 31.1.2010, this Court has been left with no other alternative but to

hold that the termination of the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 31.1.2010, without complying with

the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as alleged, is not illegal and unjustified.

Accordingly, for the failure of the petitioner to have appeared before this Court, in order to

challenge his termination, despite service, the reference, aforesaid, is decided against him. 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:

Sd/-

29-6-2013

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

________

IN THE COURT OF A.S. JASWAL, PRESIDING JUDGE, HP INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA CAMP AT SOLAN

Ref. No.

:

3 of 2013.

Instituted on

:

27-2-2013.

Decided on

:

12-6-2013.

Glover Singh s/o Shri Amar Dutt, R/o Village and IPO Gaonsari, Teh. Chirgaon, Distt.

Shimla, H.P.

. .Petitioner.

VERSUS

The Project Director, Gowthami Hydro Electric Co. Pvt. Ltd. Andhra Stage-II VPO

Gushali, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P.

. .Respondent.

Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

For petitioner

:

In person.

For respondent

:

Shri Ramesh, AR.

2598

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

AWARD

The reference for adjudication is as under :

"Whether termination of the services of Shri Glover Singh S/o Shri Amar Dut R/o

VPO Gaonsari, Tehsil, Chirgaon, District Shimla, HP by the Project Director,

Gowthami Hydro Electric Co. Pvt. Ltd., Andhra Stage-I VPO Gushali, Tehsil

Chirgaon, District Shimla, HP w.e.f. 14.10.2011 without complying the provisions of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back

wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above Ex- worker is

entitled to from the above employer?”

2. Consequent upon the receipt of aforesaid reference, in this Court, notices were isued to

the parties and in response thereof, Shri Gurdyal Singh (Petitioner) put his presence. On behalf of

respondent, Shri Ramesh, AR had appeared. As per order dated 15/5/2013, this case was listed for

setlement for today i.e 12.6.2013.

Before this Court, it was stated by the petitioner (Gurdyal Singh) that a setlement has

already been efected between the parties. To this efect, his statement recorded separately.

Since, a setlement has already taken place between the parties, the reference, which has

been made to this Court by the appropriate government, stands answered accordingly. Let a copy of

this award be sent to the appropriate government for publication in oficial gazete. File, after

completion be consigned to records.

A. S. JASWAL,

Presiding Judge.

Labour Court, Shimla.

__________

IN THE COURT OF A.S. JASWAL, PRESIDING JUDGE, HP INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA

Ref. No.

:

1 of 2009.

Instituted on

:

16-1-2009.

Decided on

:

21-6-2013.

Laxami Nand s/o Late Shri Chet Ram, Village Chalama, P.O. Matrani, Tehsil, Arki Distt.

Solan, H.P

. .Petitioner.

VERSUS

The Managing Director/General Manager, M/s Hotel Asia The Down, Shimla-171010, H.P.

. .Respondent.

Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

For petitioner

:

Shri Hemant Vaid, Advocate

For respondent

:

Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate

2599

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

AWARD

The reference for adjudication is as under :

1.

"Whether the enquiry conducted by the management of Hotel Asia The Down,

Shimla-171010, H.P. against Shri Laxmi Nand S/o Late Shri Chet Ram is fair and

justified and based on the principle of natural justice ? If not, whether action taken on

the basis of such enquiry is illegal and unjustified?"

2.

"Whether the punishment of dismissal from service, imposed on Shri Laxami

Nand S/o late Shri Chet Ram w.e.f. 23-4-2007 is proportionate to his misconduct

proved in the enquiry ? If not, whether the orders of dismissal from service of above

worker deserve to be quashed ? If yes, what other relief including seniority, wages

from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement the above worker is entitled to

from the Hotel Management ?"

2. The contention of the petitioner is to this efect that for the last more than eighteen

years, he had been working as Plumber with Hotel Asia The Down (hereinafter refered as

Hotel/respondent). On false and flimsy grounds, his services were dispensed with by the

respondent, pursuance to false, fake and ilegal enquiry dated 23.4.2007. In fact, the enquiry had

been initiated on the basis of leter dated 29.12.2005 on the folowing two articles:

(i) “It has been reported to me that you refused to check the water level of the water

storage tank of the Hotel at 2.30 PM on 28.12.2005.

(ii) On my routine round at 3.00 PM on 28.12.2005 of the engineer department, I found

you siting around a alive Charcoal Shigry, after stealing Hotel Charcoal from Charcoal

Storage Place meant for Hotel Tandoor.”

On the basis of the aforesaid two imputations, punishment was awarded to him. It is aleged

that for the last eighteen years he had been performing his duties honestly and to the satisfaction of

the respondent. However, with motivated designs, he was made to sufer unnecesarily. The

alegations, as made against him, clearly revealed that the management wanted to accommodate

some persons by making him scape-goat. In fact, the alegations did not warant an enquiry. Apart

from it, the enquiry conducted by the management, is biased, besides the enquiry oficer being

interested in the cause of the management. For this reason, he (enquiry oficer) did not act as an

honest quasi-judicial functionary. Moreover, as per the principles of natural justice, he could not

have acted as enquiry oficer for his being part and parcel of the management. The enquiry oficer

did not alow him (petitioner) the asistance of a proper defending oficer. Even, the statement of

witneses, were recorded at his back and that the same, did not inspire confidence. It is also said that

the witneses, under the presure of the management, had not given true account of the aleged

incident. The enquiry further goes to show that it is a mere eye-wash because the petitioner was not

aforded a chance to defend himself. For leading defence evidence, no opportunity had been

aforded. He was also not given an opportunity to cros-examine the witneses. The order under

chalenge is violative of section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter refered as Act),

because the principles of “last come first go” was ignored. Apart from this, persons junior to him

are stil working with the respondent. No such record/document had been brought which could go to

show that at the relevant time, the petitioner was duty bound to check the water level and that it was

a case of dereliction of duties. The alegation that he, along-with co-workers, had stolen the

Charcoal is totaly wrong. In fact the wood had been colected from the Jungle, so, that fire could

have been lit in order to warm themselves in the cold weather of the month of December. It was the

duty of the management to have provided the workers with heating facilities. There is no proof, on

2600

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

record, that Charcoal had been stolen from the store. Against this backdrop, a prayer has been made

for geting the order dated 23.4.2009 set aside and to direct the respondent to reinstate him with al

consequential benefits.

3. On having raised various preliminary objections, including maintainability, estoppel

and that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necesary parties, the respondent has also contested the

claim of the petitioner on the plea that the enquiry against the petitioner had been conducted, as per

the provisions of law, on the basis of true alegations. It has been specificaly denied that the enquiry

oficer was interested in the cause of the management. The petitioner had been given every

opportunity to lead his evidence which he did not lead. It is further avered that on having conducted

a proper and fair enquiry, the petitioner, along-with co-workers, had been removed from service.

The management had chargesheeted the petitioner, along-with Dalu Ram (Mali) and Sandeep

Chauhan (senior security guard), vide chargesheet dated 13.3.2006 for aleged dereliction of duties

amounting to misconduct. The domestic enquiry had been conducted by Shri B.N Gupta, Advocate.

During the course of enquiry, the petitioner did not raise any objection against the appointment and

conduct of the enquiry oficer. He even admited the charges against him during the course of

enquiry. It has further been aserted that the petitioner had been habitual delinquent and was found

indulging in indiscipline since he joined the duties. Firstly, he had been given memo on 24.3.1991

for habitual absenteeism. Thereafter, on 18.5.1991, 27.5.1991, 26.7.1993, 9.11.1994, 23.11.1995

and 27.11.1995, he was isued memos. On 8.2.1994, he had been found under the influence of liquor

in the Hotel premises during duty hours. On 6.1.1996, he was again isued memo as he was found

consuming liquor in the staf quarters which was not alowed as per the standing orders, applicable to

the Hotel employees. Once, he had been involved in a criminal case with other employees of the

Hotel and with the intervention of the management, the mater was resolved amicably. At Police

Station Boileuganj, FIR had been registered against the petitioner. It is further avered that the

removal, from service, was the right punishment for the petitioner who had a checkered past service

record. It has been denied that the respondent wanted to accommodate some other person. Since,

the alegations against the petitioner were of serious nature, the same required, an impartial enquiry,

to go into the same. It is further said that the petitioner had been aforded proper opportunities to

defend himself. The reply which had been filed by him, to the chargesheet, was properly

considered. No witneses had been recorded at the back of the petitioner. The petitioner, along-with

other co-delinquent employees, had signed al the proceedings of the enquiry. At that time, they had

neither raised any objection regarding the conduct of the enquiry oficer nor about the procedure

adopted by him. In the enquiry, the alegations of theft, absenteeism and refusal to work had been

duly proved against the petitioner which amounted to misconduct. Thus, his removal from service

was legal. Since, the present dispute pertains to misconduct of a workman, which stood duly proved

by an independent enquiry, there was no violation of section 25 of the Act. For this reason, question

of junior workmen working with the respondent, does not arise. As the petitioner had been found

involved in gros misconduct, the question of retrenchment benefits did not arise. Other alegations

denied.

4. By filing rejoinder, the petitioner reaffirmed his on allegations by denying those of the

respondent.

5.

The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues which were struck on

15-5-2010.

1.

Whether the enquiry conducted against the petitioner is fair and justified ? . .OPR.

2.

If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the punishment of dismissal from service,

imposed on the petitioner is proportionate to his misconduct ?

. .OPR.

3.

If issue No. 1 is not proved, to what service benefits, the pertitioner is entitled to ?

. .OPR.

2601

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

4.

Relief.

6.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record

of the case carefully.

7.

For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing issues for determination,

my findings on the aforesaid issues are as under.

Issue No. 1

No.

Issue No. 2

Becomes redundant.

Issue No. 3

Entitled to reinstatement in service with seniority and continuity along-with

back wages @ 25%.

Relief.

Reference answered in favour of the petitioner per operative part of award.

8.

For the respondent, it has been urged that on the basis of fair and proper domestic

enquiry, the charges against the pertitioner stood porved and inconsequence thereof, his services

were reightly dispensed with. Ld. Counsel further urged that th petitioner had been afforded several

opportunities to defend himself, in the enquiry proceedings. He was also afforded opportunity to

cross-examine the witnesses, produced by the management, but he failed to do the needful. In these

circumstances, when every reasonable opportunity had been afforded to the petitioner to defend

himsel, in the enquiry proceedings, if cannot be said that the enquiry, which had been conduced

against him, is not fair and proper.

9. On the other hand, it has been submited on behalf of petitioner that he (petitioner) had

been deprived to get availed the services of defence asistant in order to defend himself, in the

enquiry proceedings. Even, the witneses had been examined at his back and for this reason, he was

deprived to cros-examine them. Ld. Counsel further urged that the enquiry which had been

conducted against the petitioner was not fair because the management had inclined to dispense with

his services, so that some other person could have been engaged in his place. Even the charges,

which had been leveled against him were false and that the same could not be proved, during the

enquiry proceedings, from the aleged evidence led by the management.

10. When, the reply filed by the respondent is considered, it is highlighted that various

memos had been isued to the petitioner by the respondent management. The alegations against the

petitioner are that on 28.12.2005, he had refused to check the water level of the water storage tank

of the Hotel at 2.30 PM and further that on same day at about 3.00PM, he had been found siting

around a Charcoal Shigry which had been lit on having alegedly stolen Charcoal from the storage

place ment for keeping Charcoal for Hotel Tandoor.

11. It has been stated by Shri D.R Thakur (RW-1) that Ex. RW-1/A (objected to) is the

enquiry report. His evidence further goes to show that in the enquiry proceedings, he was the

presenting oficer. His evidence further shows that the petitioner had used coal of the Hotel for

enjoying fire in the open and did not comply with the directions to perform duties during duty

hours. In this regard, Shri Prem Sharma had made a writen complaint and during enquiry

proceedings, his statement was also recorded. He (RW-1) further stated that the Charcoal stock is

kept in the store in the custody of security guard. Regarding daily consumption of Charcoal, the

record is maintained. Regarding theft of the charcoal, there is no record. He cannot tel regarding the

exact quantity of charcoal which had been stolen. The petitioner had not been provided defence

asistant because as per rules, the delinquent has to defend himself and no outsider or other defence

2602

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

asistant can be provided. Although, there is a job description chart of the petitioner but the same, he

did not bring.

12. Shri B.N Gupta, Advocate (RW-2) had been appointed as enquiry oficer by the

management of the Hotel. His enquiry report is Ex. RW-1/A which he had submited to the

management along-with the proceedings of the enquiry as wel as the evidence recorded at that time.

The petitioner had signed each statement. In the cros- examination, he stated that as per writen

leter, he had been appointed as an enquiry oficer, while being in active practice as an Advocate. To

the delinquent, he had supplied copy of order sheets of each date of hearing. He (delinquent) had

also been aforded opportunity to avail the services of defence asistant in order to defend himself

during the enquiry proceedings. He admited that Ex. RW-1/A (enquiry report) is against S/Shri

Laxami Nand (petitioner), Dula Ram (Mali) and Sandeep Chauhan (senior security guard).

Statement Ex. DX, is in his hand and it does not reveal the name of the delinquent. He does not

remember that whether during enquiry proceedings, he had got obtained the chart, pertaining to the

duties of the petitioner, or not. The document Ex. DY is also in his hand and it pertains to

delinquent Dula Ram. Signatures of petitioner were obtained on Ex. DY because its copy had been

supplied to him.

13. The petitioner (PW-1) in his chief-examination has filed his afidavit Ex. PW-1/A

wherein, he has supported the facts as made in the claim petition, including that he had not been

aforded any opportunity for geting appointed a defence asistant. He was also not given any chance

to cros-examine the witneses. Besides, the relevant documents had not been supplied to him either

before or during the enquiry. He further stated that the enquiry had been conducted for geting him

removed from the services ilegaly. In the cros-examination, he denied to have received memos

mark 1 and mark 2. In his presence, no enquiry had been conducted by Shri B.N Gipta, Advocate.

He admited his signatures on statements annexed with enquiry report at points encircled A, B, C, D,

E, F, G and H. He explained to have signed those documents as witnes. He denied to have

commited the theft of the Charcoal and further to have remained absent during duty hours. He

further denied that during enquiry, he had been given ful opportunity to defend himself.

14. When regard is given to the evidence of shri B. N. Gupta, Advocate (RW-2), who had

been appointed as an enquiry oficer, by the management, it is highlighted that the delinquent

(petitioner) had been ofered to get appointed a defence asistant/oficer. His such version has not

been supported by Shri D.R Thakur (RW-1) who says himself to be the presenting oficer in the

case. According to him, petitioner had not been provided defence asistant, for the reason that as per

the house rules, he was required to defend himself. Here, I would like to point out that when the

documents, annexed with enquiry report, Ex. RW-1/A, are carefuly perused, it is abundantly clear

that he (petitioner) had not been apprised of his right to have availed the services of a defence

asistant, in order to defend himself, during enquiry proceedings. Although, in the statement of the

petitioner (Laxami Nand), which had been recorded by the enquiry oficer (B.N Gupta, Advocate) it

has been stated that he (petitioner) did not want to get appointed a defence asistant to defend

himself, during the enquiry proceedings, but from this aleged statement, it is not proved that the

delinquent (petitioner) had been apprised of his legal right to have availed the services of a defence

asistant. His aleged composite statement which pertains to diferent facts is not suficient to show

that he had been made known about his legal right to have got availed the services of defence

asistant, in order to defend himself, during the enquiry proceedings. In order to prove the alegations

against delinquent (petitioner), the management had examined Sanjyay Negi, Resident Manager,

Shri Dhani Ram, Senior Manager Accounts, Shri Sureshwar Nand and Prem Sharma. Their

statements go to show that they had not been subjected to cros-examination by the petitioner. It has

been mentioned that opportunity had been given to cros-examine the witneses but the same was not

availed. In my view, the enquiry which had been conducted by Shri B.N Gupta, Advocate (enquiry

oficer) was not fair because it was his duty to have taken steps for geting appointed a defence

2603

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

asistant to the petitioner so that he could have defended himself during enquiry proceedings. Had it

been so, then the witneses, who had been examined by the management, as aforesaid, were to be

cros-examined on behalf of the petitioner. Here, I would also like to point out that there is no such

evidence which had been led before the enquiry oficer (B.N Gupta) that either the petitioner

(Laxami Nand) or co-workers Dula ram and Sandeep Chauhan had stolen charcoal from the store

of the Hotel. In fact, there was no such report regarding theft of the charcoal from the store of the

Hotel. It is further to be observed that alegation against the petitioner, along-with co-workers, is to

this efect that they had been found while warming themselves, on having lit charcoal, in Shigry.

The aleged incident pertained to the month of December (28.12.2005). The contention of the

petitioner is that he, along-with co-workers, had colected wood from the Jungle and by liting the

same, they were warming themselves. In the absence of theft of Charcoal, from the store of the

Hotel, the version of the petitioner, in this regard, appears to be acceptable/believable.

15. Another alegation against the petitioner is that he had refused to check the water level

of the water storage tank of the Hotel. During enquiry proceedings, no such document had been

produced which could go to show as to what were the duties of the petitioner which he was

required to perform as Plumber. From that duty chart, it could have been known as to whether, the

petitioner was required to check the water level of the water storage tank or not. I may further like

to point out that when enquiry report, Ex. RW- 1/A, is gone through carefuly, it is highlighted that

the same pertains to the petitioner (laxmi Nand) along-with Dula Ram and Sandeep Chauhan. For

the sake of fair and proper enquiry, it was required that there should have been separate enquiries

against the aforesaid three delinquents and against each there should have been separate enquiry

reports. The manner, in which the statement of the witneses had been recorded by the enquiry

oficer, particularly Ex. DX and Ex. DY, goes to show that that the same had been recorded against

al the three delinquents including the petitioner. For the sake of fair and proper enquiry, the

statement of witneses were required to be recorded separately against each of the delinquent,

including the petitioner. Here, I would like to point out that the charges against the petitioner were

to have failed to check the water level and that he was found siting near alive charcoal Shigry. The

charges against Dula Ram (mali) were to have neglected in his duties by siting out-side the

maintenance room, along-with petitioner (Laxami Nand), around the shigry and to have stolen

charcoal from the store of Hotel. Charge against Sandeep Chauhan, another co-worker was

regarding to have neglected to perform his duties. This goes to show that there had been diferent

charges against the co- workers including the petitioner against whom the enquiry had been

conducted by Shri B.N Gupta, Advocate as per report Ex. RW-1/A.

16. Before, I proceed further, it needs to be stated as to what are the requirements of the

principles of natural justice. The same are : (i) workman should know the nature of the complaint of

accusation (i) an opportunity to state his case (i) the management should act in good faith which

means that the action of the management should be fair, reasonable and just.

17. In the instant case, when the principles of natural justice which were required to be

observed by the enquiry oficer (Sh. B.N. Gupta, Advocate) are considered, the same cannot be said

to have been fulfiled/satisfied. Since, the petitioner had not been aforded an opportunity to get

availed the services of a defence asistant, he was not in a position to state his case before the

enquiry oficer during the enquiry proceedings. Here, I would like to point out that to get the

enquiry conducted against the petitioner, the management had appointed the enquiry oficer who

had been in active practice as an Advocate. In the afidavit, Ex. PW-1/A, of the petitioner, it has

come that the respondent management had got conducted the enquiry against him on artificial

charges which did not amount to dereliction of duties. He further made it clear that no opportunity

had been given to him for geting appointed a defence asistant in order to defend himself in the

enquiry proceeding. The manner, in which, the enquiry had been conducted against the petitioner,

along with co-workers, for the aleged charges goes to show that even from the evidence which was

2604

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

led before the enquiry oficer, the charges had remained unproved. Here, I may point out that

without having established that the petitioner had stolen the charcoal from the store of the Hotel,

the charge no 2 against him, could not have been proved. Similarly, charge no 1 also remained

unproved in the absence of such document/documents which could have gone to show as to what

were the duties of the petitioner, being a Plumber. It has been aleged by the petitioner, in his claim

petition, that on false and flimsy grounds, he had been chargesheeted and further that the enquiry

had been got conducted against him in an ilegal manner. When such asersion of the petitioner is

considered, on the face of the material of the record, it can be said that the management had not

acted in good faith against him and that its action cannot be said to fair, reasonable and just.

18. Consequently, for what has been stated hereinabove, I disagree with the respondent

that a fair and proper enquiry had been conducted against the petitioner and that on its basis his

services had been rightly dispensed with/ terminated. On the other hand, the contention advanced

on behalf of the petitioner that the enquiry which had been conducted against the petitioner fails to

satisfy the requirements of principles of natural justice, requires to be accepted. Since, the principle

of natural justice had not been folowed/complied with while conducting enquiry against the

petitioner, I hold that the same is not fair and justified. Accordingly, my answer to this isue is “no”.

Issue No. 2.

14. Since, the respondent has failed to prove isue no 1, this isue becomes redundant.

Issue No. 3

A prayer has been made by the petitioner to reinstate him in service and also to direct the

respondent to pay him emoluments of pay from the date of removal til reinstatement with al other

dues of pay etc. Since, while deciding isue no. 1, above, it has been held by me that the enquiry

which had been conducted against the petitioner was not fair and proper, as per the principles of

natural justice, his removal/ dismisal from services with efect from 23.4.2007 is required to be set

aside and the same is set aside. The petitioner deserves to be reinstated in service with seniority and

continuity along with back wages @ 25%. Accordingly, this isue is answered in favour of

petitioner.

Relief

As a sequel to my findings on the aforesaid isues, the claim of the petitioner is alowed and

the petitioner is ordered to be reinstated in service with seniority and continuity along with back

wages @ 25%. Consequently, the reference stands answered in favour of petitioner and against the

respondent. 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 in the open court today this day of 21st June, 2013 in the persence of parties

counsels.

A. S. JASWAL,

Presiding Judge.

Industiral Tribunal-cum

Labour Court, Shimla.

2605

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

IN THE COURT OF A.S JASWAL, PRESIDING JUDGE, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA

Ref. No.

:

2 of 2012.

Instituted on

:

11.1.2012.

Decided on

:

4.6.2012.

Kamla D/o Sh. Raju Village Jagat Khanna P.O Ghattie , Tehsil & District Solan, HP.

. . Petitioner.

VERSUS

The Managing Director, Solan Energy Saving Products (P) Ltd., Near HFCL Chambaghat,

Tehsil & District Solan, HP.

. .Respondent.

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

For petitioner

:

Shri J.C Bhardwaj, AR.

For respondent

:

Shri Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate

AWARD

The reference for adjudication is as under:

“Whether the termination of services of Smt. Nisha Sharma W/o Shri Dev Dutt,

Village Ber-Gaon, P.O Chambaghat, Tehsil & District Solan, HP by the Managing

director M/s solasn Energy Saving Products (P) Ltd., near HFCL Chambaghat, Tehsil

& District Solan, HP w.e.f. 7.4.2010 without serving chargesheet, without holding

enquiry and without complying with the provisions of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947

is proper and justified? If not, to what back wages, service benefits and relief the above

named workman is entitled to from the above employer?”

2.

Consequent upon the receipt of reference in this court from appropriate government,

notices were issued to the petitioner as well as respondent. Whereas, on behalf of petitioner Shri

J.C Bhardwaj, AR has put his presence, on behalf of respondent, Shri Pankaj Sharma appeared.

3. Although, several opportunities were given to the petitioner to file the claim petition

but the needful was not done. The repeated failure of the petitioner to have done the needful led this

Court to believe/assume that she is not interested to assail/challenge her termination of services

w.e.f. 7.4.2010 by the respondent. Consequently, for her failure to have done the needful, there is

no material whatsoever before this Court to arrive at conclusion that her termination of services

w.e.f. 7.4.2010 is improper and unjustified. Thus, this reference stands answered accordingly. 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 in the open court today on this 4th Day of June, 2013.

A. S. JASWAL,

Presiding Judge.

Industiral Tribunal-cum

Labour Court, Shimla.

2606

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

IN THE COURT OF A. S. JASWAL, PRESIDING JUDGE, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA

Ref. No.

:

4 of 2012.

Instituted on

:

11.1.2012.

Decided on

:

4.6.2012.

Miss Kamla D/o Sh Nain Singh Village Shattal P.O Deothi, Tehsil & District Solan, HP.

. .Petitioner.

VERSUS

The Managing Director, Solan Energy Saving Products (P) Ltd., Near HFCL Chambaghat,

Tehsil & District Solan, HP.

. .Respondent.

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

For petitioner

: Shri J. C. Bhardwaj, AR.

For respondent

: Shri Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate

AWARD

The reference for adjudication is as under:

“Whether the termination of services of Smt. Nisha Sharma w/o Shri Dev Dutt, Village

Ber-Gaon, P.O Chambaghat, Tehsil & District Solan, HP by the Managing director

M/s solasn Energy Saving Products (P) Ltd., near HFCL Chambaghat, Tehsil &

District Solan, HP w.e.f. 7.4.2010 without serving chargesheet, without holding

enquiry and without complying with the provisions of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947

is proper and justified? If not, to what back wages, service benefits and relief the above

named workman is entitled to from the above employer?”

2. Consequent upon the receipt of reference in this court from appropriate government,

notices were issued to the petitioner as well as respondent. Whereas, on behalf of petitioner Shri

J.C Bhardwaj, AR has put his presence, on behalf of respondent, Shri Pankaj Sharma appeared.

3. Although, several opportunities were given to the petitioner to file the claim petition

but the needful was not done. The repeated failure of the petitioner to have done the needful led this

Court to believe/assume that she is not interested to assail/challenge her termination of services

w.e.f. 7.4.2010 by the respondent. Consequently, for her failure to have done the needful, there is

no material whatsoever before this Court to arrive at conclusion that her termination of services

w.e.f. 7.4.2010 is improper and unjustified. Thus, this reference stands answered accordingly. 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 in the open court today on this 4th Day of June, 2013.

A. S. JASWAL,

Presiding Judge.

Industiral Tribunal-cum

Labour Court, Shimla Camp at Solan.

2607

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

IN THE COURT OF A. S. JASWAL, PRESIDING JUDGE, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA

Ref. No.

:

25 of 2012.

Instituted on

:

14.6.2012.

Decided on

:

4.6.2012.

Narender Thakur and 17 other workmen C/o Shri J.C Bhardwaj, President HP AITUC, HQ

Saproon, District solan, HP.

. .Petitioner.

VERSUS

The Occupier/Factory Manager M/s Omega Electronic Scale Co. Ltd., B-29, Electronics

Complex, Chambaghat, District Solan, HP Head Office M/s Omega Electronic Scale Co. Ltd. 27

Tamarind Lane, Rajabahadue Building Near Mumbai Stock Exchange, Fort, Mumbai-400001.

. .Respondent.

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

For petitioner :

Shri J.C Bhardwaj, AR.

For respondent :

Shri Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate

AWARD

The reference for adjudication is as under:

“Whether miscellaneous demands raised by shri Narender Thakur & 17 other workmen

C/o Shri J.C Bhardwaj, President HP AITUC HQ Saproon, District Solan HP as per

demand notice dated 6.10.2010 (Copy enclosed) to be fulfilled by the

Occupier/Factory Manager M/s Omega Electronic Scale Co. Ltd., B-29, Electronics

Complex, Chambaghat, District Solan, HP Head Office M/s Omega Electronic Scale

Co. Ltd. 27 Tamarind Lane, Rajabahadue Building Near Mumbai Stock Exchange,

Fort, Mumbai-400001 are legally justified and maintainable, If yes, what amount of

monitory benefits and compensation the concerned workmen of above establishment ,

are entitled to from the above employers/management?”

2.

Consequent upon the receipt of reference in this court from appropriate government,

notices were issued to the petitioners as well as respondent. Whereas, on behalf of petitioners Shri

J. C. Bhardwaj, AR has put his presence, on behalf of respondent, Shri Pankaj Sharma appeared.

3. Although, several opportunities were given to the petitioners to file the claim petition

but the needful was not done. The repeated failure of the petitioners to have done the needful led

this Court to believe/assume that they are not interested to pursue their demands vide demand

notice dated 6.10.2010. Consequently, for their failure to have done the needful, there is no material

whatsoever before this Court to arrive at conclusion that their demands vide demand notice dated

6.10.2010 are legally justified and maintainable. Thus, this reference stands answered accordingly.

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 in the open court today on this 4th Day June, 2013.

A. S. JASWAL,

Presiding Judge.

Industiral Tribunal-cum

Labour Court, Shimla Camp at Solan.

2608

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

IN THE COURT OF A. S. JASWAL, PRESIDING JUDGE, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA.

Ref. No.

:

3 of 2012.

Instituted on

:

11.1.2012.

Decided on

:

4.6.2012.

Nisha Sharma W/o Shri Dev Dutt R/o Village Ber-Gaon, P.O Chambaghat, Tehsil &

District Solan, HP.

. .Petitioner.

VERSUS

The Managing Director, Solan Energy Saving Products (P) Ltd., Near HFCL Chambaghat,

Tehsil & District Solan, HP.

. .Respondent.

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

For petitioner

: Shri J. C. Bhardwaj, AR.

For respondent

: Shri Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate

AWARD

The reference for adjudication is as under:

“Whether the termination of services of Smt. Nisha Sharma W/o Shri Dev Dutt,

Village Ber-Gaon, P.O Chambaghat, Tehsil & District Solan, HP by the Managing

director M/s solasn Energy Saving Products (P) Ltd., near HFCL Chambaghat, Tehsil

& District Solan, HP w.e.f. 7.4.2010 without serving chargesheet, without holding

enquiry and without complying with the provisions of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947

is proper and justified? If not, to what back wages, service benefits and relief the above

named workman is entitled to from the above employer?”

2.

Consequent upon the receipt of reference in this court from appropriate government,

notices were issued to the petitioner as well as respondent. Whereas, on behalf of petitioner Shri

J. C. Bhardwaj, AR has put his presence, on behalf of respondent, Shri Pankaj Sharma appeared.

3. Although, several opportunities were given to the petitioner to file the claim petition

but the needful was not done. The repeated failure of the petitioner to have done the needful led this

Court to believe/assume that she is not interested to assail/challenge her termination of services

w.e.f. 7.4.2010 by the respondent. Consequently, for her failure to have done the needful, there is

no material whatsoever before this Court to arrive at conclusion that her termination of services

w.e.f. 7.4.2010 is improper and unjustified. Thus, this reference stands answered accordingly. 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 in the open court today on this 4th Day of June, 2013.

A. S. JASWAL,

Presiding Judge.

Industiral Tribunal-cum

Labour Court, Shimla Camp at Solan.

2609

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

IN THE COURT OF A. S. JASWAL, PRESIDING JUDGE, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA CAMP AT SOLAN

Ref. No.

:

63 of 2003.

Instituted on

:

27.2.2003.

Decided on

:

7.6.2013.

Ramesh s/o Shri Dharam Singh, R/o Village Jhajari bherewala, P.O. Poka, Tehsil Kamru,

District Sirmour, H.P.

. .Petitioner.

VERSUS

The DFO, Forest Division Renukaji, District Sirmour, H.P.

. .Respondent.

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

For petitioner

: A. K. Gupta, Advocate

For respondent

: Shri Jagdish Kanwar, Ld. DDA.

AWARD

The reference for adjudication is as under:

^^Jh jes'k pUn lqiq= Jh /keZ flag] nSfud Hkksxh csynkj dks ou e.My vf/kdkjh js.kqdkth]

ftyk fljekSj }kjk ekpZ] 1995 ls vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 esa fn, x, izko/kkuksa dh

vuqikyuk fd, fcuk ukSdjh ls fudyuk tkuk mfpr o U;k;laxr gS \ ;fn ugha rks dkexkj

fdl jkgr] iwoZ osru] ofj"Brk] lsok ykHkksa ,oa {kfriwfrZ dk gdnkj gS \**

2.

Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that he was engaged as forest worker in the year

1985 and continued, as such , upto July, 2003 when his services were disengaged by the respondent

in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred Act). While

retrenching his services, neither any notice had been issued nor any compensation was paid to him.

Even, Junior persons to him are still continuing in service. The respondent has also made fresh

engagements after his (petitioner's) dis-engagement. It is further said that the petitioner is not

gainfully employed anywhere after the date of his dis-engagement. Against this backdrop, a prayer

has been made to reinstate him in service with all the consequential benefits.

3.

The claim Petition has been contested on the plea that the petitioner was engaged

during the month of April, 1985 and that he worked upto July, 2008. Except the years, 1988 to

1992, he did not complete 240 days in each calendar year. It is further averred that he was not

disengaged by the respondent but, on his own, left the work.

4.

Rejoinder not filed. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues which

were struck on 5-3-2012.

1.

Whether the termination of the services of petitioner by the respondent w.e.f.

March, 1995 is in violation of the provisions of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 ?

. .OPP.

2.

If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what relief, the petitioner is entitled to ?

. .OPP.

3.

Relief.

2610

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

5.

I have heared the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record

of the case carefully.

6.

For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing issues for determination my

findings on the aforesaid issues are as under.

Issue No. 1

:

No.

Issue No. 2

:

becomes redundant.

Relief.

Reference answered against the petitioner, per operative part of

award.

Reasons for findings

Issue No. 1

7. At the very outset, it is to be mentioned that as per the reference, made to this Court,

this court is to ascertain as to whether the disengagement of the petitioner w.e.f. March, 1995 is in

violation of the provisions of the Act or not. However, when regard is given to the claim petition

which has been filed by the petitioner, it is revealed that according to him (petitioner), he had

continued to remain in service upto July, 2003, when his services, were alegedly dis-engaged by the

respondent in violation of the provisions of the Act. From the stand, which has been taken by the

petitioner, it is abundantly clear that it is contrary to the reference, which has been made to this

Court for adjudication. Despite the aforesaid stand, which has been taken by the petitioner, in

conflict with the reference made to this Court, it is required to be ascertained as to whether the

services of the petitioner were dis-engaged by the respondent either w.e.f. March, 1995 or July,

2003 as is the contention of the petitioner.

8. The evidence of the petitioner, when he appeared in the witnes box as PW-1, goes to

show that, on daily wages, he was engaged as forest worker in the year, 1985 and continued as such

til July, 2003, when his services were disengaged without notice and compensation. Even, the

respondent kept his juniors and also engaged new persons. After having been dis-engaged from the

service, he did not do any work. In the cros-examination, he (petitioner) stated that from April,

1985, when he was engaged, he continued to remain in service upto July, 2008. He denied not to

have completed 240 days in each calendar year. He specificaly denied that except the years, 1988 to

1992, he did not complete 240 days in any of the calendar years. He denied that mark R-1 is his

mandays chart and that, on his own, he left the job/service. He also denied that the respondent has

neither engaged any person junior to him nor new one. No such documents have been produced by

him which could go to show that the respondent has engaged persons junior to him or new one.

9. Shri Khatri Ram (PW-2) says that in the Forest Department he has been working as

daily wager for the last 19 years. In the year 2003, the petitioner had been disengaged by the

department without any notice and compensation despite the fact that he had been working for 240

days in each calendar year. In the cros-examination, he admited that til 2008, the petitioner kept on

doing work/job. He denied that the petitioner, on his own, left the job.

10. Shri Ram Chand (RW-1) says that the petitioner had been engaged for doing seasonal

forest works in the year, 1985 and he continued as such til 2008. Even, during that period, he

(petitioner) had been iregular in doing his job. Ex. RA is his mandays chart which is corect as per

the original brought by him. Except the years, 1988 to 1992, he did not complete 240 days in any

calendar years. In the year 1995, he had only worked for 33 days. Neither, he (petitioner) had been

2611

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

disengaged from service nor his juniors are doing job. In the year, 2008, he (petitioner), on his own,

had left the job despite the fact that work was available with the department. In the cros-

examination, he has stated not to have isued notice to the petitioner. No such writing is available

with him which could go to show that the petitioner, on his own, had left the job. No other persons

have been engaged for doing seasonal work, when the petitioner left the job. He denied that the

petitioner had not left the job, on his own, but his services were disengaged.

11. When regard is given to the evidence of the petitioner (PW-1), it is abundantly clear

that he himself admits that from April, 1985, he had continued to remain in job til July, 2008. To

the similar efect is the version of Shri Khatri Ram (PW-2). From the evidence which has been led

by the petitioner, it is abundantly clear that his stand, as taken in the petition, that his services were

disengaged in the month of July, 2003 is totaly incorect/wrong. It is not his case that his services

had been disengaged in the month of March, 1995, as is the reference, which has been made to this

Court. It has been specificaly stated by Shri Ram Chand (RW-1) that the services of the petitioner

had not been disengaged but in the year, 2008, on his own, he left the job despite the fact that work

was available with the respondent. According to him, Ex. RA is the mandays chart of the petitioner.

The perusal of the mandays chart, Ex. RA, goes to show that in the year, 1985, the petitioner had

worked for 78 days and that he had continued to remain in service/job til July, 2008, in which year,

he had worked for 55 days, in total. In the year, 1995, the petitioner had worked for 33 days. In the

preceding years i.e 1994 and 1993, he had worked for 132 and 55 days respectively. It is further to

be noted that in the years 2007 and 2006, the petitioner had worked for 47 and 31 days respectively.

From the mandays chart Ex. RA, it is further borne out that in the year, 2003, the petitioner had not

worked at al. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that his services had been disengaged in the

year, July, 2003 is contrary to mandays chart Ex. RA. Even, in the year, 2002, the petitioner had

worked for 24 days and in the year preceding to that (2001), he had worked for 20 days. In this

way, from the mandays chart Ex. RA, it is quite clear that neither in the year preceding to 1995 nor

2003, the petitioner had worked for 240 days. Even, he had not worked for 240 days in the

preceding year 2008. From the documentary as wel as oral evidence which is on record, it is clearly

borne out that the petitioner has failed to prove that he had worked continuously before his services

were alegedly disengaged by the respondent. On the other hand, from the evidence of Shri Ram

Chand (RW-1), it is clear that, on his own, the petitioner had left the job/service. The petitioner

could have become entitled to be isued notice and also paid compensation, only if he had proved

that in the year preceding to his aleged disengagement, he had worked for 240 days and for this

reason, he had remained in continuous service. I disagree with the Learned Counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner, that from the evidence on record, the petitioner succeeds to prove his case

which requires his reengagement along-with consequential service benefits. Learned Dy. DA

appearing on behalf of respondent has rightly urged that from the evidence which is, on record, the

petitioner has failed to prove that he had remained in continuous service as per the provisions of the

Act.

12. Consequently, for what has been stated hereinabove, I hold that the petitioner has

failed to prove that his services had been terminated by the respondent w.e.f. March, 1995 in

violation of the provisions of the Act. It is further to be noted that the petitioner has even not

succeeded in proving that his services had been disengaged in the month of July, 2003, as is his

stand taken in the petition, from his own evidence and also the mandays chart Ex. RA.

13. Apart from this, the petitioner has not brought any such record before this Court which

goes to show that after his aleged disengagement from service, new persons have been engaged by

the respondent. His evidence further fails to prove that any junior to him has been engaged/retained

by the respondent. Thus, I hold that the petitioner has failed to prove that his services had been

disengaged w.e.f. March, 1995 in contravention of the provisions of the Act and as such my answer

to this issue is "No".

2612

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

Issue No. 2

14. For the failure of the petitioner to have proved issue No. 1, this issue becomes

redundant.

Relief

As a sequel to my findings on the aforesaid issues, the claim of the petitioner is dismissed.

Consequently, the reference stands answered against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent.

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 this day of 7^th June, 2013 in the presence of parties

counsels.

A. S. JASWAL,

Presiding Judge.

Industiral Tribunal-cum

Labour Court, Shimla Camp at Solan.

___________

IN THE COURT OF A. S. JASWAL, PRESIDING JUDGE, HP INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA CAMP AT SOLAN

Ref. No.

:

2 of 2013.

Instituted on

:

27.2.2013.

Decided on

:

12.6.2013.

Sunil Kumar s/o Shri Dhru Sain, r/o Village Ranol, P.O. Gaonsari, Tehsil Chirgaon,

District Shimla, H.P.

. .Petitioner.

VERSUS

The Project Director, Gowthami Hydro Electric Co. Pvt. Ltd., Andhra Stage-II, VPO

Gushali, Tehsil Chirgaon, Distt. Shimla. H.P.

. .Respondent.

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

For petitioner

: In person.

For respondent

: Shri Ramesh, AR.

AWARD

The reference for adjudication is as under:

"Whether termination of the services of Shri Glover Singh S/o Shri Amar Dut R/o

VPO Gaonsari, Tehsil, Chirgaon, District Shimla, HP by the Project Director,

Gowthami Hydro Electric Co. Pvt. Ltd., Andhra Stage-I VPO Gushali, Tehsil

Chirgaon, District Shimla, HP w.e.f. 14.10.2011 without complying the provisions of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back

2613

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above Ex- worker is

entitled to from the above employer?”

2. Consequent upon the receipt of aforesaid reference, in this Court, notices were isued to

the parties and in response thereof, Shri Gurdyal Singh (Petitioner) put his presence. On behalf of

respondent, Shri Ramesh, AR had appeared. As per order dated 15/5/2013, this case was listed for

setlement for today i.e 12.6.2013.

Before this Court, it was stated by the petitioner (Gurdyal Singh) that a setlement has

already been efected between the parties. To this efect, his statement recorded separately.

Since, a setlement has already taken place between the parties, the reference, which has

been made to this Court by the appropriate government, stands answered accordingly. Let a copy of

this award be sent to the appropriate publication in oficial gazete. File, after completion be

consigned to records.

A. S. JASWAL,

Presiding Judge.

Industiral Tribunal-cum

Labour Court, Shimla.

___________

Presiding Judge

Ref . :

39 of 2010

Worker Unions V/s Manager Shivalik Hatcheris Nalagarh.

28/5/2013

Present :

Sh. J. C. Bhardwaj, Ar with Sh. Pola Ram, President venktesh Hatcheries,

Workers, Workers Union Panjira for petitioner.

Sh. Hardeep Verma, Advocate with Sh. Arindam Ganguly, Assitant manager

(Personnel), Shivalik hatcheries for respondent.

At bar, it has been stated by both the parties that an amicable settlement has already taken

place between the parties out fo court. To this effect, statement of Sh. Arindam Ganguly,

Asswistant manager (Personnel), Shivalik hatcheries Nalagarh recorded separately. Shri Pola Ram,

President Venktesh Hatcheries, Workers Union, Panjira has also admitted the settlement so arrived

between the parties to be correct and acceptable to him on behalf of workers union.

Consequent upon the arrival of the settlement between the parties, our of court, this

reference stands answered in terms of compromise Ex. C-1 as well as statements as made before

this court by Sh. Arindam Ganguly, Assistant manager (Personnel), Shivalik Hatcheries and Sh.

Pola Ram President Venktesh hatcheries, Workers Union Panjira. Let a copy of this award be sent

to the appropriate government of publication in the official gazette. File after completion, be

consigned to records.

Announced

28/5/2013

Presiding Judge

Labour Court, Shimla,

Camp at Nalagarh,

2614

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

IN THE COURT OF A. S. JASWAL, PRESIDING JUDGE, HP INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA CAMP AT SOLAN

Ref. No.

:

4 of 2013.

Instituted on

:

27.2.2013.

Decided on

:

12.6.2013.

Gurdyal Singh S/o Shri Gian Chand, r/o Village Rausi, P.O. Gaonsari, Tehsil Chirgaon,

District Shimla, H.P.

. .Petitioner.

VERSUS

The Project Director, Gowthami Hydro Electric Co. Pvt. Ltd., Andhra Stage-II, VPO

Gushali, Tehsil Chirgaon, Distt. Shimla. H.P.

. .Respondent.

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

For petitioner

: In person.

For respondent

: Shri Ramesh, AR.

AWARD

The reference for adjudication, is as under:-

"Whether termination of the services of Shri Glover Singh S/o Shri Amar Dut R/o

VPO Gaonsari, Tehsil, Chirgaon, District Shimla, HP by the Project Director,

Gowthami Hydro Electric Co. Pvt. Ltd., Andhra Stage-I VPO Gushali, Tehsil

Chirgaon, District Shimla, HP w.e.f. 14.10.2011 without complying the provisions of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back

wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above Ex- worker is

entitled to from the above employer?”

2. Consequent upon the receipt of aforesaid reference, in this Court, notices were isued to

the parties and in response thereof, Shri Gurdyal Singh (Petitioner) put his presence. On behalf of

respondent, Shri Ramesh, AR had appeared. As per order dated 15/5/2013, this case was listed for

setlement for today i.e 12.6.2013.

Before this Court, it was stated by the petitioner (Gurdyal Singh) that a setlement has

already been efected between the parties. To this efect, his statement recorded separately.

Since, a setlement has already taken place between the parties, the reference, which has

been made to this Court by the appropriate government, stands answered accordingly. Let a copy of

this award be sent to the appropriate government for publication in oficial gazete. File, after

completion be consigned to records.

A. S. JASWAL,

Presiding Judge.

Industiral Tribunal-cum

Labour Court, Shimla.

2615

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

mPprj f'k{kk foHkkx

¼f'k{kk&[k½

vf/klwpuk

f'keyk&2] 30 tqykbZ] 2013

la[;k% bZ-Mh-,u-&,0&d ¼1½&1@2006.—fgekpy izns'k dh jkT;iky] Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds

vuqPNsn 309 ds ijUrqd }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] fgekpy izns'k yksd lsok vk;ksx ds

ijke'kZ ls] vf/klwpuk la[;k [k ¼15½&2@92&f'k{kk&d&A] rkjh[k 24&8&1992 }kjk vf/klwfpr fgekpy

izns'k] mPprj f'k{kk foHkkx] iz/kkukpk;Z ¼Ldwy laoxZ½] oxZ&I ¼jktif=r½ ds HkrhZ vkSj izksUufr fu;e] 1992

dk vkSj la'kks/ku djus ds fy, fuEufyf[kr fu;e cukrh gSa] vFkkZr~%&

1- laf{kIr uke vkSj izkjEHk-&¼1½ bu fu;eksa dk laf{kIr uke fgekpy izns'k] mPprj f'k{kk foHkkx]

iz/kkukpk;Z ¼Ldwy laoxZ½] oxZ&I, ¼jktif=r½ HkrhZ vkSj izksUufr ¼r`rh; la'kks/ku½ fu;e] 2013 gS A

¼2½ ;s fu;e jkti=] fgekpy izns'k esa izdkf'kr fd, tkus dh rkjh[k ls izo`Rr gksaxs A

2- mikcU/k&d dk la'kks/ku-& fgekpy izns'k mPprj f'k{kk foHkkx foHkkx] iz/kkukpk;Z ¼Ldwy

laoxZ½] oxZ&I ¼jktif=r½ ds HkrhZ vkSj izksUufr fu;e] 1992 ds mikcU/k&d esa LrEHk 11 ds lkeus fo|eku

micU/kksa ds LFkku ij fuEufyf[kr j[kk tk,xk] vFkkZr%&

“¼i½ ipkl izfr'kr] eq[;k/;kidksa esa ls izksUufr }kjk] ftudk rhu o"kZ dk fu;fer lsokdky ;k

xzsM esa dh xbZ rxkrkj rnFkZ lsok] ;fn dksbZ gks] dks lfEefyr djds rhu o"kZ dk fu;fer lsokdky gks]

,slk u gksus ij eq[;k/;kidksa esa ls izksUufr }kjk] ftudk eq[;k/;kid@izf'kf{kr Lukrd v/;kid ds :Ik

esa l;qDrr% iUnzg o"kZ dk fu;fer lsokdky ;k dh xbZ yxkrkj rnFkZ lsok ;fn dksbZ gks] dks lfEefyr]

djds iUnzg o"kZ dk fu;fer lsokdky gks] ftlesa eq[;k/;kid ds :i esa nks o"kZ dk lsokdky gksuk

vfuok;Z gS A

¼ii½ ipkl izfr'kr] izoDrk (Ldwy laoxZ)@LukrdksRrj v/;kid vkSj O;olkf;d Ldwy izoDrkvksa

esa ls izksUufr }kjk ftudk vkB o"kZ dk fu;fer lsokdky ;k xszM esa dh xbZ yxkrkj rnFkZ lsok] ;fn dksbZ

gks] dks lfEefyr djds vkB o"kZ dk fu;fer lsokdky gks A O;olkf;d Ldwy izoDrkvksa dk fgLlk izoDrk

(Ldwy laoxZ)@LukrdksRrj v/;kidksa vkSj O;olkf;d Ldwy izoDrkvksa ds dksVk esa 1%75 gksxk A

IkjUrq izksUufr ds iz;kstu ds fy, izR;sd deZpkjh dks] tutkrh;@ nqxZe {ks=ksa esa in ¼inksa½ dh ,sls

{ks=ksa esa Ik;kZIr la[;k dh miyC/krk ds v/;/khu] de ls de ,d dk;Zdky rd lsok djuh gksxh%

IkjUrq ;g vkSj fd mi;qZDr ijUrqd ¼1½ mu deZpkfj;ksa ds ekeys esa ykxw ugha gksxk ftudh

vf/kof"kZrk ds fy, ikap o"kZ ;k mlls de dh lsok 'ks"k jgh gks%

IkjUrq ;g vkSj Hkh fd mu vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa dks] ftUgksaus tutkrh;@nqxZe {ks= esa de ls

de ,d dk;Zdky rd lsok ugha dh gS] ,sls {ks= esa mlds vius laoxZ ¼dkMj½ esa loZFkk ofj"Brk ds

vuqlkj LFkkukUrj.k fd;k tk,xkA

Li"Vhdj.k I-&mi;qZDr ijUrqd ds iz;kstu ds fy, tutkrh;@nqxZe {ks=ksa esa Þdk;ZdkyÞ ls

lk/kkj.kr;k rhu o"kZ dh vof/k ;k iz'kklfud vis{kkvksa vkSj deZpkjh }kjk fd, x, dk;Z dks /;ku esa j[krs

gq, ,sls {ks=ksa esa rSukrh dh blls de vof/k vfHkizsr gksxh A

Li"Vhdj.k II-&mi;qZDr ijUrqd ds Ikz;kstu ds fy, tutkrh;@nqxZe {ks= fuEu izdkj ls gksaxs%&

1- ftyk ykgkSy ,oa fLifr A

2616

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

2- pEck ftyk dk ikaxh vkSj HkjekSj mi e.MyA

3- jksgM+w mi e.My dk MksMjk Dokj {ks=A

4- ftyk f'keyk dh jkeiqj rglhy dk iUnzg chl ijxuk] equh'k] njdkyh vkSj xzke iapk;r

dk'kkikVA

5- dqYyw ftyk dk iUnzg chl ijxukA

6- dkaxM+k ftyk ds cStukFk mi e.My dk cM+k Hkaxky {ks=A

7- ftyk fdUukSjA

8- fljekSj ftyk esa mi rglhy dejm ds dkBokM+ vkSj dksjxk iVokj o`Rr] js.kqdkth rglhy

ds HkykM+&HkYkkSuk vkSj lkaxuk iVokj o`Rr vkSj f'kykbZ rglhy dk dksVk ikc iVokj o`RrA

9- e.Mh ftyk esa djlksx rglhy dk [kU;ksy&cxM+k iVokj o`Rr] ckyh pkSdh mi rglhy ds

xkMk xkslkbZa eB;kuh] ?ku;kM+] Fkkph] ckxh] lksexkM+ vkSj [kksykuky] Ik)j rglhy ds

>kjokM+] dqVx<+] xzkeu] nsox<+] VªSyk] jksik] dFkksx] flYg&HkM+okuh] gLriqj] ?kejsM+ vkSj HkVs<+

iVokj o`Rr] Fkqukx rglhy ds fp;w.kh] dkyhikj] ekux<+] Fkkp&cxM+k mRrjh ex: vkSj

nf{k.kh ex: iVokj o`Rr vkSj lqUnjuxj rglhy dk cVokM+k iVokj o`RrA

¼1½ izksUufr ds lHkh ekeyksa esa in ij fu;fer fu;qfDr ls iwoZ lEHkjd ¼iks"kd½ in esa dh xbZ

yxkrkj rnFkZ lsok] ;fn dksbZ gks] izksUufr ds fy, bu fu;eksa eas ;Fkkfofgr lsokdky ds fy,] bl 'krZ ds

v/khu jgrs gq, x.kuk esa yh tk,xh] fd lEHkjd izoxZ esa rnFkZ fu;qfDr@izksUufr] HkrhZ vkSj izksUufr fu;eksa

ds micU/kksa ds vuqlkj p;u dh mfpr Lohdk;Z izfØ;k dks viukus ds Ik'pkr~ dh xbZ Fkh%

ijUrq mu lHkh ekeyksa esa] ftuesa dksbZ dfu"B O;fDr lEHkjd in esa vius dqy lsokdky ¼rnFkZ

vk/kkj ij dh xbZ rnFkZ lsok lfgr] tks fu;fer lsok@fu;qfDr ds vuqlj.k esa gks½ ds vk/kkj ij mi;qZDr

fufnZ"V micU/kksa ds dkj.k fopkj fd, tkus dk ik= gks tkrk gS] ogka vius&vius izoxZ@in@dkMj esa

mlls ofj"B lHkh O;fDr fopkj fd, tkus ds ik= le>s tk,axs vkSj fopkj djrs le; dfu"B O;fDr ls

Åij j[ks tk,xas %

ijUrq ;g vkSj fd mu lHkh in/kkfj;ksa dh] ftu ij izksUufr ds fy, fopkj fd;k tkuk gS] de ls

de rhu o"kZ dh U;wure vgZrk lsok ;k in ds HkrhZ vkSj izksUufr fu;eksa esa fofgr lsok] tks Hkh de gks]

gksxh%

ijUrq ;g vkSj Hkh fd tgka dksbZ O;fDr iwoZxkeh ijUrqd dh vis{kkvksa ds dkj.k izksUufr fd, tkus

lEcU/kh fopkj ds fy, vik= gks tkrk gS] ogka mlls dfu"B O;fDr Hkh ,slh izksUufr ds fopkj ds fy,

vik= le>k tk,xk@le>s tk,axs A

Li"Vhdj.k%& vafre ijUrqd ds vUrxZr dfu"B in/kkjh izksUufr ds fy, vik= ugha le>k tk,xk

;fn ofj"B vik= O;fDr HkwrioZ lSfud gS] ftls fMekschykbTM vkeZM QksflZt ijlksuy ¼fjtosZ'ku vkWQ

oSdsUlht bu fgekpy LVsV ukWu VSDuhdy lfoZlht½ :Yt] 1972 ds fu;e&3 ds micU/kksa ds vUrxZr

HkrhZ fd;k x;k gks vkSj buds vUrxZr ojh;rk ykHk fn, x, gksa ;k ftls ,Dl lfoZleSu ¼fjtosZ'ku vkWQ

oSdsUlht bu nh fgekpy izns'k VSDuhdy lfoZlht½ :Yt] 1985 ds fu;e&3 ds micU/kksa ds vUrxZr HkrhZ

fd;k x;k gks vkSj buds vUrxZr ojh;rk ykHk fn, x, gksaA

¼2½ blh izdkj LFkk;hdj.k ds lHkh ekeyksa eas ,sls in ij fu;fer fu;qfDr ls iwoZ dh lEHkjd in

ij dh xbZ yxkrkj rnFkZ lsok] ;fn dksbZ gks] lsokdky ds fy, x.kuk esa yh tk,xh] ;fn rnFkZ

fu;qfDr@izksUufr] mfpr p;u ds Ik'pkr~ vkSj HkrhZ vkSj izksUufr fu;eksa ds micU/kksa ds vuqlkj dh xbZ Fkh%

ijUrq dh xbZ mi;qZDr fufnZ"V rnFkZ lsok dks x.kuk esa ysus ds Ik'pkr~ tks LFkk;hdj.k gksxk mlds

QyLo:Ik ikjLifjd ojh;rk vifjofrZr jgsxh A”

vkns'k }kjk]

gLrk0@&

iz/kku lfpo ¼f'k{kk½A

2617

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

[Authoritative English text of this Department Notification No. EDN.-A-Ka (1)-1/2006, dated 26-

07-2013 required under clause (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution of India].

HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

(Education-B)

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-171002, the 30-07-2013

No. EDN.-A-Ka (1)-1/2006.— In exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article

309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, in consultation with the

Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, is pleased to make the following Rules, further to

amend the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Principal (School Cadre), Class-I

(Gazetted) in the Higher Education Department, Himachal Pradesh notified vide Notification No.

Kha (15)-2/92-Edu-A-I, dated 24.8.1992, namely:—

1. Short Title and Commencement.—(1) These rules may be called the Himachal

Pradesh, Higher Education Department, Principal (School Cadre) Class-I (Gazetted) Recruitment

and Promotion (Third Amendment) Rules, 2013.

(2) These rules shall come into force from the date of publication in the Rajpatra,

Himachal Pradesh.

2. Amendment of Annexure-“A”.— In Annexure-“A” to the Himachal Pradesh Higher

Education Department, Principal (School Cadre) Class-I (Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion

Rules,1992 for the existing provision against Col. No. 11, the following shall be substituted,

namely:—

“(i) 50% by promotion from amongst the Headmasters with three years regular Service or

regular combined with continuous adhoc service, rendered, if any, in the grade failing which from

amongst the Headmasters with 15 years regular service or regular combined with continuous adhoc

service rendered, if any, as Headmaster/TGT combined out of which 02 years service as

Headmaster

is essential.

(ii) 50% by promotion from amongst lecturers School Cadre/Post Graduate Teachers and

vocational school Lecturers having 8 years regular service or regular combined with continuous

adhoc service , if any, in the grade. The Share of Vocational School Lecturers in quota of

Lecturers School Cadre /Post Graduate Teachers and Vocational School Lecturers shall be in the

ratio of 1:75.”

(1) Provided that for the purpose of promotion every employee shall have to serve at least

one term in the Tribal/Difficult areas subject to adequate number of post (s) available in such areas;

Provided, further that the proviso (1) supra shall not be applicable in the case of those

employees who have five years or less service, left for superannuation.

Provided further that Officers/Officials who have not served at least one tenure in Tribal/

difficult area shall be transferred to such area strictly in accordance with his/her seniority in the

respective cadre.

Explanation I.—For the purpose of proviso (1) supra the “term” in Tribal/Difficult areas

shall mean normally three years or less period of posting in such areas keeping in view the

administrative requirements and performance of the employee.

2618

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

Explanation II.—For the purpose of proviso (1) supra the Tribal/Difficult Areas shall be as

under:—

1. District Lahaul & Spiti.

2. Pangi and Bharmour Sub-Division of Chamba District.

3. Dodra Kawar Area of Rohru Sub-Division.

4. Pandrah Bish Pargana, Munish Darkali and Gram Panchayat Kashapat, Gram

Panchayats of Rampur Tehsil of District Shimla.

5. Pandrah Bish Pargana of Kullu District.

6. Bara Bhangal Areas of Baijnath Sub-Division of Kangra District.

7.

District Kinnaur.

8. Kathwar and Korga Patwar Circles of Kamrau Sub-Tehsil, Bhaladh Bhalona and

Sangna Patwar Circle of Renukaji Tehsil and Kota Pab Patwar Circle of Shillai Tehsil,

in Sirmour District.

9. Khanyoi-Bagra Patwar Circle of Karsog Tehsil Gada-Gusaini, Mathyani, Ghanyar,

Thachi, Baggi, Somgad and Kholanal of Bali-Chowki Sub Tehsil, Jharwar, Kutgarh,

Graman, Devgarh, Trailla, Ropa, Kathog, Silh-Badhwani, Hastpur, Ghamrehar and

Bhatehar Patwar Circle of Padhar Tehsil,Chiuni, Kalipar, Mangarh, Thach-Bagra,

North Magru and South Magru Patwar Circles of Thunag Tehsil and Batwara Patwar

Circle of Sunder Nagar Tehsil in Mandi District.

(1) In all cases of promotion, the continuous adhoc service rendered in the feeder post, if

any, prior to regular appointment to the post shall be taken into account towards the length of

service as prescribed in these rules for promotion subject to the condition that the adhoc

appointment/ promotion in the feeder category had been made after following proper acceptable

process of selection in accordance with the provision of Recruitment and Promotion Rules:-

Provided that in all cases where a junior person becomes eligible for consideration by virtue

of his/her total length of service (including service rendered on adhoc basis, followed by regular

service/appointment in the feeder post in view of the provision referred to above) all persons senior

to him/her in the respective category/post/cadre shall be deemed to be eligible for consideration and

placed above the junior person in the field of consideration;

Provided further that all incumbents to be considered for promotion shall possess the

minimum qualifying service of at least three years or that prescribed in the Recruitment and

Promotion Rules for the post, whichever is less;

Provided further that where a junior person becomes ineligible to be considered for

promotion on account of the requirements of the preceding proviso, the person(s) junior to him/her

shall also be deemed to be ineligible for consideration for such promotion.

Explanation.—The last proviso shall not render the junior incumbent (s) ineligible for

consideration for promotion if the senior ineligible person (s) happened to be Ex-Servicemen

recruited under the provision of Rule 3 of the Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel ( Reservation

of vacancies in Himachal State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972 and having been given the

benefit of seniority there under or recruited under the provisions of Rule 3 of the Ex-Servicemen

(Reservation of Vacancies in the Himachal Pradesh Technical Services) Rules, 1985 and having

been given the benefit of seniority there under.

(2) Similarly, in all cases of confirmation, continuous adhoc service rendered on the feeder

post, if any, prior to the regular appointment against such post shall be taken into account towards

the length of service, if the adhoc appointment/promotion had been made after proper selection and

in accordance with the provision of the R & P Rules;

2619

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

Provided that inter-se-seniority as a result of confirmation after taking into account, adhoc

service rendered as referred to above shall remain unchanged.

By order,

Sd/-

Principal Secretary (Hr. Education).

___________

In the Court of Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, HPAS, Marriage Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional

Magistrate, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh

In the matter of :

1.

Neeraj Kumar, aged 26 years s/o Shri Azad Singh, r/o Village Galot, P.O. Changer,

Tehsil and District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh.

2.

Pooja Thakur, aged 25 years d/o Shri Hukam Singh, r/o Village Bhewal, P.O. Kharota,

Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur (H. P.)

. . Applicants.

Versus

General Public

Subject.— Proclamation for the registration of Marriage under Section 16 of Special Marriage Act,

1954.

Neeraj Kumar and Pooja Thakur have filed an application alongwith affidavits in the Court

of undersigned under section 16 of Special Marriage Act, 1954 that they have solemnised their

marriage on 22-10-2012 at Shiv Mandir, Talab, Nalagarh, District Solan (H. P.) and they are living

as husband and wife since then, hence their marriage may be registered under Special Marriage

Act, 1954.

Therefore, the general public is hereby informed through this notice that any person who

has any objection regarding this marriage can file the objection personally or in writing before this

Court on or before 9-9-2013. The objection received after 9-9-2013 will not be entertained and

marriage will be registered accordingly.

Issued today on 15-7-2013 under my hand and seal of the Court.

Seal.

SATISH KUMAR SHARMA,

Marriage Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate,

Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh.

_________

In the Court of Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, HPAS, Marriage Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional

Magistrate, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh

In the matter of :

1.

Ram Chand, aged 27 years s/o Shri Bishan Dass, r/o Village Lohdar, P.O. Ropri,

Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh.

2620

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

2.

Rooby Mala, aged 21 years d/o Shri Jay Singh, r/o Village Tala, P.O. Raj Nagar,

Tehsil and District Chamba (H. P.). Both presently residing c/o Shri Ajay Dogra s/o Shri Om

Parkash Dogra, r/o House No. 131, Ward No. 8, Naya Nagar, Tehsil and District Hamirpur (H. P.)

. . Applicants.

Versus

General Public

Subject.— Proclamation for the registration of marriage under section 16 of Special Marriage Act,

1954.

Shri Ram Chand and Smt. Rooby Mala have filed an application alongwith affidavits in the

court of undersigned under section 16 of Special Marriage Act, 1954 that they have solemnized

their marriage on 7-5-2013 at Shiv Mandir Gasota, Tehsil and District Hamirpur (H. P.) and they

are living as husband and wife since then, hence their marriage may be registered under Special

Marriage Act, 1954.

Therefore, the general public is hereby informed through this notice that any person who

has any objection regarding this marriage can file the objection personally or in writing before this

Court on or before 5-9-2013. The objection received after 5-9-2013 will not be entertained and

marriage will be registered accordingly.

Issued today on 19-7-2013 under my hand and seal of the Court.

Seal.

SATISH KUMAR SHARMA,

Marriage Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate,

Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh.

_________

In the Court of Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, HPAS, Marriage Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional

Magistrate, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh

In the matter of :

1.

Dev Raj, aged 38 years s/o Shri Rup Lal, r/o Village Jaar, P.O. Karhota, Tehsil

Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh.

2.

Rinki Devi, aged 37 years d/o Shri Laxman w/o Late Shri Suresh Kumar, r/o Ward No.

2, Maniara, P.O. Pahra, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra (H. P.). Both presently residing c/o Gian

Devi w/o Shri Hari Ram, r/o Village Sawahal, P.O. Mohin, Tehsil and District Hamirpur (H. P.)

. . Applicants.

Versus

General Public

Subject.— Proclamation for the registration of marriage under section 16 of Special Marriage Act,

1954.

2621

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

Shri Dev Raj and Smt. Rinki Devi have filed an application alongwith affidavits in the

Court of undersigned under section 16 of Special Marriage Act, 1954 that they have solemnized

their marriage on 7-5-2013 at Shiv Mandir Gasota Mahadev, Gasota, Tehsil and District Hamirpur

and they are living as husband and wife since then, hence their marriage may be registered under

Special Marriage Act, 1954.

Therefore, the general public is hereby informed through this notice that any person who

has any objection regarding this marriage can file the objection personally or in writing before this

Court on or before 5-9-2013. The objection received after 5-9-2013 will not be entertained and

marriage will be registered accordingly.

Issued today on 19-7-2013 under my hand and seal of the Court.

Seal.

SATISH KUMAR SHARMA,

Marriage Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate,

Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh.

_________

c vnkyr lgk;d lekgrkZ izFke Js.kh ,oa rglhynkj] Hkksjat] ftyk gehjiqj] fgekpy izns'k

Jh feyki flag Bkdqj lqiq= Jh Bqfu;k jke] xkao pEcksg] ekStk esok] rglhy Hkksjat] ftyk gehjiqj]

fgekpy izns'k

- - izkFkÊA

cuke

vke turk

fo"k;-&&jktLo fjdkWMZ esa uke dh n#Lrh ckjsA

Jh feyki flag Bkdqj lqiq= Jh Bqfu;k jke] xkao pEcksg] ekStk esok] rglhy Hkksjat] ftyk gehjiqj]

fgekpy izns'k us bl vnkyr esa 'kiFk&i= lfgr nj[okLr xqtkjh gS fd mldk 'kS{kf.kd fjdkWMZ] iapk;r

fjdkMZ esa lgh uke feyki flag Bkdqj ntZ gS ijUrq Vhdk pEcksg] ekStk esok ds jktLo fjdkWMZ esa mldk

uke feyki pUn ntZ gS tksfd xyr gSA izkFkÊ jktLo fjdkWMZ esa lgh uke dk bUnzkt dj n#Lrh djokuk

pkgrk gSA

vr% bl b'rgkj }kjk vke turk dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd jktLo fjdkWMZ esa feyki pUn mQZ

feyki flag Bkdqj ntZ djus ckjs fdlh dks dksbZ mtj ;k ,rjkt gks rks og vlkyru ;k odkyru

fnukad ----&-----&2013 dks gkftj vnkyr vkdj ,rjkt is'k dj ldrk gSA gkftj u vkus dh lwjr esa

,drjQk dk;Zokgh vey esa ykbZ tkdj vkxkeh dk;Zokgh dh tk,xhA mlds ckn dk mtj tsj lek;r u

gksxkA

vkt fnukad 16&7&2013 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr ls tkjh gqvkA

eksgjA

gLrk{kfjr@&

lgk;d lekgrkZ izFke Js.kh ,oa rglhynkj]

Hkksjat] ftyk gehjiqj] fgekpy izns'kA

2622

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

c vnkyr dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] Hkksjat] ftyk gehjiqj] fgekpy izns'k

uhye dqekjh iq=h Jh nysy flag] xkao <uoku] Mk0 ijksy] rglhy Hkksjat] ftyk gehjiqj] fgekpy

izns'k

- - izkfFkZ;kA

cuke

vke turk

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

vfrfjDr jftLVªkj ¼tUe ,oa e`R;q½] gehjiqj ds dk;kZy; i= la[;k 11163] fnukad 1&7&2013

vuqlkj uhye dqekjh iq=h Jh nysy flag] xkao <uoku] Mk0 ijksy] rglhy Hkksjat] ftyk gehjiqj] fgekpy

izns'k dk vkosnu&i= leLr fjdkWMZ o 'kiFk&i= lfgr bl dk;kZy; esa izkIr gqvk gS ftlesa mYys[k gS

fd uhye dqekjh dh tUe frfFk 3&4&1965 dks xzke iapk;r <uoku] rglhy Hkksjat] ftyk gehjiqj]

fgekpy izns'k ds vfHkys[k esa ntZ ugha djok ldh gS rFkk vc mDr tUe frfFk 3&4&1965 dks lEcfU/kr

iapk;r esa ntZ djokuk pkgrh gSA

vr% bl b'rgkj }kjk vke turk dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd uhye dqekjh iq=h Jh nysy flag

dk tUe fnukad 3&4&1965 dks xzke iapk;r <uoku] rglhy Hkksjat] ftyk gehjiqj] fgekpy izns'k ds

vfHkys[k esa ntZ djus ckjs fdlh dks dksbZ mtj@,rjkt gks rks og fnukad 16&8&2013 dks izkr% 10-00

cts vlkyru ;k odkyru gkftj vnkyr vkdj is'k dj ldrk gSA gkftj u vkus dh lwjr esa ,drjQk

dk;Zokgh vey esa ykbZ tkosxhA mlds ckn mtj tsj lek;r u gksxkA

vkt fnukad 16&7&2013 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr ls tkjh gqvkA

eksgjA

gLrk{kfjr@&

dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh]

Hkksjat] ftyk gehjiqj] fgekpy izns'kA

&&&&&&&

vnkyr Jh cyohj Bkdqj] LiS'ky eSfjt vf/kdkjh ,oa mi&e.My n.Mkf/kdkjh] uknkSu] ftyk gehjiqj]

fgekpy izns'k

rkjh[k nk;jk % 19&7&2013

muoku eqdÌek %

1- Jh jktho dqekj lqiq= Jh j?kqohj flag] xkao o Mkd[kkuk olkjy] rglhy uknkSu] ftyk

gehjiqj ¼fg0 iz0½A

2- Jherh vatuk dqekjh lqiq=h Jh esgj pUn] xkao o Mkd[kkuk HkjeksVh] rglhy uknkSu] ftyk

gehjiqj ¼fg0 iz0½

- - izkFkhZx.kA

cuke

loZlk/kkj.k ,oa vke turk

izkFkZuk&i= tsj /kkjk 16] LiS'ky eSfjt ,sDV] 1954 ds vUrxZr fookg iathdj.k djus ckjsA

2623

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

mijksDr ekeys esa izkFkhZx.k mijksDr us fnukad 19&7&2013 dks bl vnkyr esa izkFkZuk&i= is'k

fd;k gS fd mUgksaus fnukad 4&12&1997 dks fgUnw&jhfr fjokt ds vuqlkj 'kknh dj yh gS vkSj rc ls

ifr&iRuh ds :i esa jgrs pys vk jgs gSaA blfy, tsj /kkjk 16] LiS'ky eSfjt ,sDV] 1954 ds vuqlkj

mudk fookg iath—r fd;k tkosA

vr% loZlk/kkj.k ,oa vke turk dks bl b'rgkj jkti= ds }kjk lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn

fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks budh 'kknh dks iath—r djus ckjs dksbZ mtj o ,rjkt gks rks og fnukad

26&8&2013 dks 10-00 cts lqcg ;k blls iwoZ vlkyru ;k odkyru gkftj U;k;ky; gksdj is'k djs

vU;Fkk nhxj dk;Zokgh ,drjQk vey esa ykbZ tk,xhA

vkt fnukad 19&7&2013 dks gekjs gLrk{kj o eksgj U;k;ky; ls tkjh fd;k x;kA

eksgjA

cyohj Bkdqj]

LiS'ky eSfjt vf/kdkjh ,oa mi&e.My n.Mkf/kdkjh]

uknkSu] ftyk gehjiqj] fgekpy izns'kA

&&&&&&&

c vnkyr Jh izrki flag Bkdqj] dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh ,oa rglhynkj] bUnkSjk] ftyk dkaxM+k]

fgekpy izns'k

rkjh[k is”kh % 20&8&2013

Jh vthr flag iq= Jh vej flag] fuoklh xkao eyksV] Mkd[kkuk Hkkstiqj] rglhy bUnkSjk] ftyk

dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns”k

- - izkFkhZA

cuke

vke turk

- - izR;kFkhZA

fo"k;-—izkFkZuk&i= tsj /kkjk 13¼3½ tUe ,oa e`R;q iathdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1969 ds vUrxZr tUe frfFk

iathdj.k djus ckjsA

izkFkhZ Jh vthr flag iq= Jh vej flag] fuoklh xkao eyksV] Mkd[kkuk Hkkstiqj] rglhy bUnkSjk]

ftyk dkaxM+k us izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr djrs gq, fuosnu fd;k gS fd mldh yM+dh lrohj dkSj dk tUe

fnukad 5&8&1989 dks xkao eyksV] rglhy bUnkSjk esa gqvk gS ysfdu vKkurko'k mldh tUe frfFk dks

xzke iapk;r ?kksMu] rglhy bUnkSjk] ftyk dkaxM+k ds vfHkys[k esa iath—r u djok;k tk ldk gSA vr%

tUe frfFk dks iath—r djus ds vkns'k nsus dh vuqefr iznku djsaA

vr% bl b”rgkj }kjk loZlk/kkj.k dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr lrohj dkSj iq=h Jh vthr

flag dh tUe frfFk dks iath—r djus ckjs fdlh O;fDr dks dksbZ Hkh ,rjkt gks rks og vlkyru ;k

odkyru fnukad 20&8&2013 dks izkr% 10-00 cts vnkyr gtk esa gkftj gksdj viuk ,rjkt is”k dj

ldrk gSA dksbZ ,rjkt is'k u gksus dh lwjr esa tUe frfFk dks iath—r djus ds vkns'k ikfjr dj fn,

tk,axsA

vkt fnukad 8&7&2013 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr lfgr tkjh gqvkA

eksgjA

izrki flag Bkdqj]

dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh]

bUnkSjk] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'kA

2624

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

c vnkyr Jh izrki flag Bkdqj] dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh ,oa rglhynkj] bUnkSjk] ftyk dkaxM+k]

fgekpy izns'k

rkjh[k is”kh % 20&8&2013

Jh vthr flag iq= Jh vej flag] fuoklh xkao eyksV o Mkd[kkuk Hkkstiqj] rglhy bUnkSjk] ftyk

dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns”k

- - izkFkhZA

cuke

vke turk

- - izR;kFkhZA

fo"k;-&izkFkZuk&i= tsj /kkjk 13¼3½ tUe ,oa e`R;q iathdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1969 ds vUrxZr tUe frfFk

iathdj.k djus ckjsA

izkFkhZ Jh vthr flag iq= Jh vej flag] fuoklh xkao eyksV] Mkd[kkuk Hkkstiqj] rglhy bUnkSjk]

ftyk dkaxM+k us izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr djrs gq, fuosnu fd;k gS fd mld+s yM+ds vcrkj flag dk tUe

fnukad 24&6&1994 dks xkao eyksV] rglhy bUnkSjk esa gqvk gS ysfdu vKkurko'k mldh tUe frfFk dks

xzke iapk;r ?kksMu] rglhy bUnkSjk] ftyk dkaxM+k ds vfHkys[k esa iath—r u djok;k tk ldk gSA vr%

tUe frfFk dks iath—r djus ds vkns'k nsus dh vuqefr iznku djsaA

vr% bl b”rgkj }kjk loZlk/kkj.k dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr vcrkj flag iq= Jh vthr

flag dh tUe frfFk dks iath—r djus ckjs fdlh O;fDr dks dksbZ Hkh ,rjkt gks rks og vlkyru ;k

odkyru fnukad 20&8&2013 dks izkr% 10-00 cts vnkyr gtk esa gkftj gksdj viuk ,rjkt is”k dj

ldrk gSA dksbZ ,rjkt is'k u gksus dh lwjr esa tUe frfFk dks iath—r djus ds vkns'k ikfjr dj fn,

tk,axsA

vkt fnukad 8&7&2013 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr lfgr tkjh gqvkA

eksgjA

izrki flag Bkdqj]

dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh]

bUnkSjk] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'kA

&&&&&&&

c vnkyr Jh izrki flag Bkdqj] dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh ,oa rglhynkj] bUnkSjk] ftyk dkaxM+k]

fgekpy izns'k

rkjh[k is”kh % 20&8&2013

Jh vthr flag iq= Jh vej flag] fuoklh xkao eyksV] Mkd[kkuk Hkkstiqj] rglhy bUnkSjk] ftyk

dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns”k

- - izkFkhZA

cuke

vke turk

- - izR;kFkhZA

fo"k;-&izkFkZuk&i= tsj /kkjk 13¼3½ tUe ,oa e`R;q iathdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1969 ds vUrxZr tUe frfFk

iathdj.k djus ckjsA

2625

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

izkFkhZ Jh vthr flag iq= Jh vej flag] fuoklh xkao eyksV] Mkd[kkuk Hkkstiqj] rglhy bUnkSjk]

ftyk dkaxM+k us izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr djrs gq, fuosnu fd;k gS fd mlds yM+ds gjnhi flag dk tUe

fnukad 23&9&1991 dks xkao eyksV] rglhy bUnkSjk esa gqvk gS ysfdu vKkurko'k mldh tUe frfFk dks

xzke iapk;r ?kksMu] rglhy bUnkSjk] ftyk dkaxM+k ds vfHkys[k esa iath—r u djok;k tk ldk gSA vr%

tUe frfFk dks iath—r djus ds vkns'k nsus dh vuqefr iznku djsaA

vr% bl b”rgkj }kjk loZlk/kkj.k dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr gjnhi flag iq= Jh vthr

flag dh tUe frfFk dks iath—r djus ckjs fdlh O;fDr dks dksbZ Hkh ,rjkt gks rks og vlkyru ;k

odkyru fnukad 20&8&2013 dks izkr% 10-00 cts vnkyr gtk esa gkftj gksdj viuk ,rjkt is”k dj

ldrk gSA dksbZ ,rjkt is'k u gksus dh lwjr esa tUe frfFk dks iath—r djus ds vkns'k ikfjr dj fn,

tk,axsA

vkt fnukad 8&7&2013 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr lfgr tkjh gqvkA

eksgjA

izrki flag Bkdqj]

dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh]

bUnkSjk] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'kA

&&&&&&&

c vnkyr lgk;d lekgrkZ izFke Js.kh ,oa dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] cStukFk] ftyk dkaxM+k ¼fg0 iz0½

Smt. Raina Devi w/o Shri Sher Singh, fuoklh xkao Mwgd] Mkd?kj pkSchu] rglhy cStukFk]

ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'kA

cuke

vke turk

izkFkZuk&i= tsj /kkjk 13 ¼3½ tUe ,oa e`R;q iathdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1969-

Smt. Raina Devi w/o Shri Sher Singh, fuoklh xkao Mwgd] Mkd?kj pkSchu] rglhy cStukFk]

ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'k us bl vnkyr esa izkFkZuk&i= xqtkjk gS fd mlds iq= lquhy dqekj dk tUe

fnukad 11&10&1989 dks eqgky pkSchu eas gqvk Fkk ijUrq bl ckjs iapk;r ds fjdkWMZ esa iathdj.k ugha

djok;k tk ldkA vc iathdj.k djus ds vkns'k fn, tk,aA

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

mijksDr iathdj.k ds ckjs esa dksbZ mtj@,rjkt gks rks og fnukad 22&8&2013 dks lqcg 10-00 cts bl

U;k;ky; esa vlkyru ;k odkyru gkftj vkdj is'k dj ldrk gS vU;Fkk mijksDr tUe dk iathdj.k

djus ds vkns'k ns fn, tk,axsA mlds mijkUr dksbZ ,rjkt u lquk tk,xkA

vkt fnukad 23&7&2013 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr }kjk tkjh gqvkA

eksgjA

gLrk{kfjr@&

dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh]

cStukFk] ftyk dkaxM+k ¼fg0 iz0½A

2626

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

c vnkyr inek Nsfjax] dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] rglhy eukyh] ftyk dqYyw] fgekpy izns'k

Jh fufru iq= Lo0 Jh ohj flag] fuoklh xkao ppksxk] Mkd?kj eukyh] rglhy eukyh] ftyk

dqYyw] fgekpy izns'kA

cuke

vke turk

fo"k;-&&izdk'ku b'rgkj ckcr e`R;q frfFk iathdj.k tsj /kkjk 13 ¼3½ tUe ,oa e`R;q iathdj.k vf/kfu;e]

1969-

uksfVl cuke vke turkA

Jh fufru iq= Lo0 Jh ohj flag] fuoklh xkao ppksxk] Mkd?kj eukyh] rglhy eukyh] ftyk

dqYyw] fgekpy izns'k us bl U;k;ky; esa vkosnu&i= e; 'kiFk&i= xqtkjk gS fd mldh ekrk

Jherh vkaxeks nsoh dh e`R;q fnukad 23&2&1999 dks gqbZ Fkh ijUrq mudh e`R;q frfFk xzke iapk;r of'k"V

ds fjdkWMZ esa ntZ ugha dh xbZ gSA ftls vc ntZ djokus ds vkns'k fn, tkosaA

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

Jherh vkaxeks nsoh dh e`R;q frfFk ntZ djokus ckjs vkifÙk gks rks og fnukad 19&8&2013 dks ;k blls iwoZ

vnkyr gtk esa viuh vkifÙk ntZ djok ldrk gSA blds mijkUr dksbZ Hkh mtj ,rjkt ekU; u gksxk

rFkk fu;ekuqlkj e`R;q frfFk ntZ djokus ds vkns'k ikfjr dj fn, tk,axsA

vkt fnukad 15&7&2013 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr }kjk tkjh gqvkA

eksgjA

inek Nsfjax]

dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh]

eukyh] ftyk dqYyw] fgekpy izns'kA

&&&&&&&

c vnkyr dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] rglhy eukyh] ftyk dqYyw] fgekpy izns'k

Jh iquhr 'kekZ iq= Jh dSyk'k pUn 'kekZ] fuoklh x`g la[;k 195] okMZ ua0 7] utnhd uohu gksVy

eukyh] rglhy eukyh] ftyk dqYyw] fgekpy izns'kA

cuke

vke turk

fo"k;-&&fookg iathdj.k ckjsA

uksfVl cuke vke turkA

Jh iquhr 'kekZ iq= Jh dSyk'k pUn 'kekZ] fuoklh x`g la[;k 195] okMZ ua0 7 utnhd uohu gksVy

eukyh] rglhy eukyh] ftyk dqYyw] fgekpy izns'k us bl U;k;ky; esa vkosnu&i= e; 'kiFk&i= xqtkjk

2627

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

gS fd mlus v#.kk 'kekZ iq=h Jh izse pUn] fuoklh x`g la[;k 121] okMZ ua0 5] ljcjh cktkj dqYyw]

fgekpy izns'k ls fnukad 19&9&2010 dks fgUnw jhfr&fjokt ds eqrkfcd fookg dj fy;k gSA fookg uxj

ifj"kn~ eukyh ds vfHkys[k esa ntZ ugha gqvk gS rFkk ntZ djus gsrq vkosnu fd;k gSA

vr% loZlk/kkj.k dks bl b'rgkj }kjk lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn mijksDr fookg dks uxj

ifj"kn~ eukyh ds vfHkys[k esa ntZ djus ckjs fdlh dks dksbZ vkifÙk gks rks og fnukad 20&8&2013 dks ;k

blls iwoZ vnkyr gtk esa viuh vkifÙk ntZ djok ldrk gSA ;fn mDr fookg ds ckjs dksbZ vkifÙk izkIr

u gqbZ rks ;g le>k tk,xk fd mDr fookg ckjs fdlh dks ,rjkt u gS rFkk fookg ntZ djus ckjs vkns'k

ikfjr dj fn, tk,axsA

vkt fnukad 18&7&2013 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr }kjk tkjh gqvkA

eksgjA

gLrk{kfjr@&

dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh]

eukyh] ftyk dqYyw] fgekpy izns'kA

&&&&&&&

In the Court of Shri Vinay Singh (H.A.S.), Marriage Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate,

Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh

In the matter of :

1.

Shri Tushar Saini, aged 26 years s/o Shri Anil Kumar Saini, r/o Sheela Chowk, P.O.

Sidhpur, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra (H.P.).

2.

Smt. Anchal Marwah, aged 26 years d/o Shri Ashok Kumar Marwah, r/o Gandhi

Nagar, Tehsil & District Kullu (H.P.)

. . Applicants.

Versus

General public

Subject.—Proclamation for the registration of marriage under section 16 of Special Marriage Act,

1954.

Shri Tushar Saini and Smt. Anchal Marwah have filed an application on dated 8-7-2013

alongwith affidavits in the court of undersigned under section 16 of Special Marriage Act, 1954

that they have solemnized their marriage on 22-9-2012 and they are living as husband and wife

since then, hence their marriage may be registered under Special Marriage Act, 1954.

Therefore, the general public is hereby informed through this notice that any person who

has any objection regarding this marriage can file the objection personally or in writing before this

court on or before 9-8-2013. The objection received after 9-8-2013 will not be entertained and

marriage will be registered accordingly.

2628

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 30 tqykbZ] 2013@8 Jko.k 1935

Issue today on 8-7-2013 under my hand and seal of the Court.

Seal.

VINAY SINGH,

Marriage Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate,

Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.

_________

fu;U=d] eqnz.k rFkk ys[ku lkexzh] fgekpy izns'k] f'keyk&5 }kjk eqfnzr rFkk izdkf'krA