jkti=] fgekpy izns'k
fgekpy izns'k jkT; 'kklu }kjk izdkf'kr
f”keyk] 'kqØokj] 23 vxLr] 2013@1 Hkknzin] 1935
fgekpy izns'k ljdkj
cgqmÌs”kh; ifj;kstuk,sa ,oa fo|qr foHkkx
vf/klwpuk
rkjh[k% 19 vxLr] 2013-
la[;k% fo|qr&N% ¼5½&43@2011-—;r% fgekpy izns”k ds jkT;iky dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd
lryqt ty fo|qr fuxe fyfeVsM] tks fd Hkw&vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 ¼1894 dk igyk vf/kfu;e½ dh
/kkjk&3 ds [k.M ¼lh-lh-½ ds vUrxZr dsUnzh; ljdkj ds LokfeRo vkSj fu;U=.k ds v/khu ,d fuxe gS] dks
vc fuEufyf[kr Hkwfe dh lkoZtfud iz;kstu gsrq vftZr djus dh vko”d;rk ugha gSA
112&jkti=@2013&23&08&2013 ¼2891½
2892
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 23 vxLr] 2013@1 Hkknzin 1935
2- vr% vc jkT;iky] fgekpy izns”k] ;g vf/klwpuk ,sls O;fDr;ksa dks] tks blls lEcfU/kr gks
ldrs gSa] dh tkudkjh ds fy, Hkw&vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 dh /kkjk&48 ds vUrZxr iznRr “kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq, bl foHkkx }kjk tkjh dh xbZ lela[;d vf/klwpuk fnukad 24 fnlEcj] 2011 rFkk 10
viSzy] 2012 tks fd Øe'k% Hkw&vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 dh /kkjk&4 rFkk 6 o 7 ds vUrxZr eqgky lqtkuiqj]
rglhy lqtkuiqj] ftyk gehjiqj] fgekpy izns'k esa /kkSykfl) ty fo|qr ifj;kstuk ds fuekZ.k gsrq Hkwfe
vftZr djus ds fy, tkjh dh xbZ Fkh] esa ls fuEu fooj.kh esa fofuZfn’V gS] Hkwfe dks vf/kxzg.k djus dh
dk;Zokgh ls lg’kZ okfil ysrs gSaA
fooj.kh
ftyk
rglhy
xkao
[kljk ua0
jdok ¼duky& ejys esa½
gehjiqj
lqtkuiqj
lqtkuiqj
791@1
1-10
dqy fdRrk& 1
dqy jdok& 1&10
vkns'k }kjk]
gLrk{kfjr@&
iz/kku lfpo ¼fo|qr½A
&&&&&&&&
LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATION
Shimla-2, the 21th August, 2013
No. Sharm (A) 7-1/2005-1 (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
Court Shimla on the website of the Department of Labour & Employment of the Government of
Himachal Pradesh:—
Sr.
No.
Case No:
July, 2013
Title of the Case
Date of Award
1.
43/2009
Shri Baam Dev V/s Factory Manager Ayurvet
Ltd, Solan.
3-7-2013
2.
01/2013
Workers of M/S Landis + Gyr Ltd V/s factory
Manager/Occupier M/S Landis + Gyr Ltd, Baddi.
5-7-2013
3.
38/2010
Shri Sanjay Kumar V/s M/S Deepak Spinners
Ltd, Baddi.
3-7-2013
4.
16/2012
Smt Bhago Devi V/s CHT Incharge Govt.
Primary School Kumarhatti.
30-7-2013
5.
115/2007
Shri Heera Singh V/s M/S Himalaya Chemical
Ladhi.
6-7-2013
2893
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 23 vxLr] 2013@1 Hkknzin 1935
6.
81/2010
Sh. Brij Kishore V/s Secy. Kalash Copt. Society
Baddi.
20-7-2013
7.
55/2011
Sh. R. L. Dogra V/s HRTC Shimla.
12-7-2013
By order,
Sd/-
Pr. Secretary ( Labour & Employment).
_________
IN THE COURT OF A. S. JASWAL, PRESIDING JUDGE, HP INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA CAMP AT NALAGARH
Ref. No.
:
43 of 2009
Instituted on :
15-6-2009
Decided on
:
3-7-2013
Baam Dev Singh S/o Shri Dalip Singh R/o Vilage Sunami, P.O. Salouni, Tehsil Barsar,
District Hamirpur, HP.
. .Petitioner.
Vs.
The Factory Manager Ayurvet Ltd., Vilage Katha, P.O Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District
Solan. HP. . .Respondent.
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 reference for adjudication, is as under:—
"Whether the termination of the services of Shri Baam Dev Singh S/o Shri Dalip
Singh by the Factory Manager Ayurvet Ltd., Vilage Katha, P.O Baddi, Tehsil
Nalagarh, District Solan. HP w.e.f. 16.11.2006 without complying the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what relief and
consequential service benefits including compensation the above aggrieved worker is
entitled to.?”
2.
Consequent upon the receiving of this reference, in this Court, the petitioner had filed
claim petition wherein he stated that on 22.2.2005, he was appointed as peon in the respondent
factory which at that time was under construction. He remained engaged as such, till 16.11.2006,
when he was illegally removed from services, orally. It is further alleged that he had remained in
continuous service as he worked for more than 240 days, in the employment of the respondent, in
each year, including twelve calendar months preceeding his termination. Even, his juniors were
retained in employment. In this way, the respondent violated sections 25-G & 25-H of the Act.
Even, the mandatory procedure contained in section 25-F was not complied with.
2894
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 23 vxLr] 2013@1 Hkknzin 1935
3.
The claim of the petitioner has been contested on having raised preliminary objections
qua maintainability and that he has not come before this Court with clean hands. On merits, it has
been averred that the petitioner, intermittently had worked with the contractor of the respondent
during project phase of the company which came into existence in the month of October, 2005.
Thus, his contention to have joined the respondent company in the month of Feb., 2005 is totally
wrong. Other allegations denied.
4. Pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues which were struck on
22-8-2012.
1.
Whether the termination of the services of petitioner by the respondent w.e.f.
16.11.2006 is in violation of the provisions of Industrial disputes ASct, 1947? . .OPP.
2.
If issue no.1 is proved, to what relief and consequential benefits, the petitioner is
entitled to?
. .OPP.
3.
Whether this petition is not maintainable as alleged? . .OPR.
4.
Relief.
5.
Before, I provceed further it is pertinent to mention that since the petitioner failed to
lead evidence despite several opportunities, his evidence had to be closed, as per order dated
3-7-2013, for the reasons narrated therein. For his failure to have led evidence, the respondent also
did not lead any evidence.
6.
For the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter, my findings on the aforesaid issues are asw
under:
Issue no. 1.
No.
Issue no. 2.
Become redundant
Issue no. 3.
No.
Relief.
Reference answered against the petitioner and in favour of respondent as per
award.
Issue No. 1
7.
The contention of the petitioner is to this effect that his services were illegally
terminated w.e.f. 16.11.2006 without complying with the provisions of the Act. In support of his
such contention, neither he has examined himself nor any other witness. Since, he failed to examine
himself as his own witness, the facts as stated in the petition, do not get substantiated. In this way,
the petitioner has been unable to prove that his services had been terminated in violation of the
provisions of the Act as alleged in the petition. Thus, I without hesitation hold that he has failed to
prove issue no.1 to which my answer is “No”.
Issue No. 2
8.
For the failure of the petitioner to have proved isue no.1, this isue becomes redundant.
2895
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 23 vxLr] 2013@1 Hkknzin 1935
Issue No. 3
9.
It could not be proved on record as to why this petition is not maintainable. As, this
petition has been filed by the petitioner, consequent upon the reference which has been made to this
Court, by the appropriate government, I hold it to be maintainable. Thus, my answer to this issue is
“No”.
Relief
As a sequel to my findings on the aforesaid issues, the claim of the petitioner is dismissed,
Consequently, the reference stands answered against him 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 3rd July, 2013.
By order,
A. S. JASWAL,
Presiding Judge,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla
Camp at Nalagarh.
__________
IN THE COURT OF A.S JASWAL, PRESIDING JUDGE, INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA.
Ref. No.
:
16 of 2012
Instituted on :
31-5-2012
Decided on
:
30-7-2012
Bhago Devi W/o Shri Sant Ram, R/o Village Kumarhatti, P.O Goyala Pannar, Tehsil
Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.
. .Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Government Primary School Kumarhatti, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, HP.
2.
Pradhan/Secretary VEC Committee, GPS, Kumarhatti, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan,
HP. . .Respondents.
Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For petitioner:
Shri Dinesh Banot, Advocate.
For respondents:
Already exparte.
AWARD
The reference for adjudication is as under :—
“Whether the termination of services of Bhago Devi W/o Shri Sant Ram, R/o
Village Kumarhatti, P.O Goyala Pannar, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, HP who was
2896
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 23 vxLr] 2013@1 Hkknzin 1935
appointed as Mid Day Meal worker in Government Primary School, Kumarhatti, P.O
Goyala Pannar, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan HP by the Pradhan/Secretary VEC
Committee, GPS Kummarhatti w.e.f. 8.2.2010 without complying with the provisions
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what amount of
back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above aggrieved
workman is entitled to?”
2.
The contention of the petitioner is that for the last more than five years, she had been
working with the respondents as Mid Day Meal Worker, in Government Primary School,
Kumarhatti, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, HP on monthly wages of Rs. 300/-. On 8.2.2010, her
services had been retrenched without complying with the principle of last come first go. Even, her
junior had been retained in service. It has further been clarified that Smt. Savitri Devi, who has
been working as Mid Day Meal Worker for the last three years, has been retained in service despite
the fact that she (petitioner) had put in five years of service and for this reason, she was senior to
said Smt. Savitri Devi. Against this backdrop, a prayer has been made to reinstate her by setting
aside the retrenchment order and also to pay her consequential benefits, like back wages as well as
seniority.
3. Notices were issued to the respondents who were duly served and for them, as is
evident from the record, Smt. Prem Lata, AR appeared for respondent no.1 and Ms. Meghna
Thakur, Advocate put her presence for respondent no. 2. On 29.12.2012, when the case was fixed,
none appeared on behalf of respondents and as such they were proceeded against exparte.
4. By way of exparte evidence, the petitioner examined herself as PW-1. Documentary
evidence also rendered.
5. Besides having heard the exparte arguments, I have also carefully gone through the
material on record.
6. It has been specifically alleged by the petitioner that before her retrenchment from
service, being Mid Day Meal Worker, in Government Primary School, Kumarhatti, she had already
put in five years of service. She further averred that without having complied with the principle of
last come first go, her services were retrenched on 8.2.2010. Even, her junior Smt. Savitri Devi,
who has put in three years of service, as Mid Day Meal Worker, has been retained, whereas, her
services were terminated despite the fact that she was senior to said Smt. Savitri Devi.
7. In her evidence, the petitioner (PW-1) has testified that she had been engaged as Mid
Day Meal Worker by the respondents since, 2004 at Government Primary School, Kumarhatti, on
monthly wages of Rs. 200/- which later on came to be enhanced to Rs. 400/-. In every calendar
year, she had worked for more than 240 days. On 8.2.2010, she was disengaged from service,
orally, without any reason. At that time, no notice and compensation had been paid to her. Smt.
Savitri Devi, junior to her, has been still working with the respondents whereas she stood
retrenched. To the BPO, she had made a representation vide Ex. PA but of no avail.
8. From the evidence which has been led by the petitioner, it is duly proved that she had
been engaged as Mid Day Meal Worker by the respondents in the year, 2004 and that when her
services were disengaged, she had already put in more than five years of service. Her evidence
further goes to show that in every calendar year, she had worked for more than 240 days. Since, for
the failure of the respondents to have contested this petition, for having been proceeded against
exparte, there is no material, before this Court, which could go to show that in the preceding year
before her retrenchment, the petitioner had not completed 240 days. In the absence of such, it is
required to be held that she had been in continuous service, precedent to her retrenchment. In these
2897
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 23 vxLr] 2013@1 Hkknzin 1935
circumstances, the respondents were required to have complied with section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as Act). To comply with the aforesaid section, the
petitioner was required to be given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for her
retrenchment or she was required to be paid, in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the
notice. Further, as per the aforesaid section, compensation which was to be equivalent to fifteen
days average pay, for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in access of
six months was also required to be paid to her. In the instant case, as is evident from the statement
of the petitioner (PW-1), no notice or retrenchment compensation had been paid to the petitioner.
9. Apart from this, since, Smt. Savitri Devi who is junior to the petitioner, continued to
remain working with the respondents, further goes to show that while retrenching the petitioner,
procedure as laid down in section 25-G of the Act had also not been complied with. If, the
respondents were to retrench any workman, in that event, the workman who was the last person to
be employed in that category, was to be retrenched. In case, some other workman was required to
be retrenched, in that event, the employers (respondents), were to record reasons, for such
retrenchment. In the instant case, it is quite clear, from the evidence of the petitioner (PW-1), that
her junior Smt. Savitri Devi is still in service with the respondents, If the respondents were to order
retrenchment of a workman, in that event, Smt. Savitri Devi who was junior to the petitioner, was
required to be retrenched instead of the petitioner. This clearly goes to show that there had been
violation of the procedure as laid down in section 25-G of the Act.
10. It has been rightly argued on behalf of the petitioner that without having complied with
the provisions of the Act, the services of the petitioner had been retrenched w.e.f. 8.2.2010 by the
respondents. Since, the retrenchment of the petitioner had been ordered/effected in violation of the
provisions of the Act, her disengagement order dated 8.2.2010 is required to be set aside and
accordingly it is set aside and the petitioner is ordered to be reinstated in service with seniority and
continuity. Since, there is no evidence on record, which could go to show that the petitioner is not
gainfully employed after being retrenched by the respondents, her reinstatement in service is
ordered without back wages. 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 30th Day of July, 2013.
By order,
A.S. JASWAL,
Presiding Judge,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla.
___________
IN THE COURT OF A.S JASWAL, PRESIDING JUDGE, HP INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA.
Ref. no.
:
81 of 2010
Instituted on :
30-6-2010
Decided on
:
26-7-2013
Brij Kishore S/o Shri Dashrath R/o Pump House, The Kailash Co-operative Housing
Building society, Ltd., Kailash Vihar, Baddi, District Solan, HP. . .Petitioner.
VS
The Secretary, The Kailash Co-operative Housing Building society, Ltd., Kailash Vihar,
Baddi, District Solan, HP.
. .Respondent.
2898
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 23 vxLr] 2013@1 Hkknzin 1935
Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For petitioner:
Shri Rupesh Sharma, Advocate
For respondent:
Shri Rajkumar, Advocate.
AWARD
The reference for adjudication, is as under:—
"Whether the termination of the services of Shri Brij Kishore S/o Shri Dashrath
by the Secretary, The Kailash Co-operative Housing Building society, Ltd., Kailash
Vihar, Baddi, District Solan, HP w.e.f. 11.1.2009 without following the provisions of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as alleged by workman is proper and justified? If
not, what relief and consequential service benefits the above worker is entitled to from
the above employer?”
2.
It has been aleged by the petitioner that he was appointed as Plumber, on the pump
house of the Kailash Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Kailash Vihar, Baddi, District
Solan, HP (hereinafter referred as Society), since 1991, on monthly wages of ` 3500/-. On
11.1.2009, his services were illegally terminated, without serving any chargesheet, by the
respondent. Even, no copies of alleged complaints had been supplied to him. The respondent also
did not get conducted preliminary enquiry as was required under law. Before his termination, he
had completed 240 days in each calendar year and performed his work/duties honestly. He had
been performing his duties as per the directions of the respondent. It is further alleged that the
alleged enquiry committee had never issued any notice to him, in order to take part in the alleged
enquiry proceedings. Even, he had not been issued proposed penalty-cum- second show cause
notice. For the failure of the respondent to have adopted the said procedure of law and rules, as laid
down in the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Rules of Himachal Pradesh 1973 (amended rules 1991), the termination letter
dated 11.1.2009 is illegal. It is further said that the order dated 11.1.2009, is not a speaking one and
prior to it, the petitioner had not been heard. Thus, the penalty imposed upon him is totally wrong.
Against this backdrop, a prayer has been made to reinstate him in the employment of the
respondent with retrospective effect i.e 11.1.2009 with full back wages and other incidental benefits
like increments and continuity in service.
3. The petition has been contested by stating that right from 1991 till 2007, the petitioner
had been working as a private contractor. He was engaged as pump operator w.e.f. 17.3.2007, on
monthly salary of ` 3500/-, and worked as such till 30.10.2007. For this period, he was paid an
amount of ` 26,016/-. Thereafter, he worked upto 18.9.2008 and was paid regular salary. However,
after 18.9.2008, he did not attend to his duties, as he absented himself. For this reason, the water
supply was adversely affected. Consequent there upon, residents of the Society complained against
him in writing. Although, he (petitioner) was called upon to explain his position but of no avail.
Finally, it was resolved by the general committee of the society to cal upon him in order to explain
his position and in this regard, a letter dated 4.11.2008 was issued to him but no reply thereto was
furnished. For his failure to file reply, he (petitioner) was issued chargehsheet, which was sent by
registered post, with a direction to reply the same within seven days from its receipt. Vide
resolution dated 16.11.2008, it was resolved by the managing committee, as per proposal passed by
the general house committee, held on 9.11.2008, to get the mater enquired by constituting three
members committee comprising of Mr. Dinesh Kaushal, Hem Raj Chaudhary and Mr. M.L Sharma,
residents of the society. As per the principles of natural justice, the petitioner had been aforded a
reasonable opportunity of being heard by the committee. Thereafter, the committee submitted its
2899
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 23 vxLr] 2013@1 Hkknzin 1935
report holding that al the charges stood proved against the petitioner. On having considered the
report, the managing committee had sent the resolution along-with enquiry report to the Ld.
Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Solan (hereinafter referred as Assistant Registrar), the
competent authority, to take a final decision in the mater. On having considered the resolution of
the managing committee and also the enquiry report, the Assistant Registrar got an independent
enquiry conducted through Block Inspector, Co-operative Societies, Nalagarh (hereinafter referred
as Block Inspector) vide letter no. 712 dated 21.9.2009. As per the report submitted by the Block
Inspector, the petitioner had been stated, not to be performing his duties diligently. For this reason,
the decision to dismiss him from service had to be taken. Thus, the Assistant Registrar accorded his
approval in this regard vide letter dated 2.7.2009 which was received by the society on 6.7.2009.
Upon this, the managing committee vide resolution no. 2 dated 19.7.2009, dismissed the petitioner
from service with immediate effect vide letter dated 23.7.2009. It is further averred that since, he
had not worked during the period from 18.9.2008, he was not granted any benefits, of salary and
other benefits having regard to the major punishment, imposed upon him and also keeping in view
his behavior and conduct while in service. Thus, the action of the respondent is legal and valid and
there is no illegality or impropriety, in the order, under challenge. It is further explained that since
the petitioner had refused to accept any letter/chargesheet, the respondent had no other option but to
proceed against him exparte, as required under law. It is further stated that the petitioner had also
approached various Courts/ Forums in as much as the Ld. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nalagarh
by way of C.S No. 383/60/2008 which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In that suit, he had
specifically alleged that he was serving as pump operator with the respondent but subsequently he
changed his designation from pump operator to plumber, on having come to know that the pump in
the society had been installed in the year 1996. Other allegations denied.
4.
By filling rejoinder, the petitioner reaffirmed his own allegations by denying those of
the respondent.
5.
The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues which were struck on
9-8-2011.
1.
Whether the termination of services of petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. 11-1-2009 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.
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 fort 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 as per operative part of
award.
Reasons for findings
Issue No. 1.
8.
It has been specifically alleged by the petitioner that he had been appointed/engaged as
plumber by the respondent on pump house since 1991 and that in each calendar year, he had
completed 240 days. He has also averred the termination letter dated 11.1.2009 to be illegal for the
2900
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 23 vxLr] 2013@1 Hkknzin 1935
reason that the respondent had not adopted the set procedure of law and rule as laid down and
further that no chargesheet had been served upon him. Even, the copies of alleged complaints,
made by the residents of the society, had not been supplied to him.
9. On the other hand, the contention of the respondent is to this effect that right from
1991 till 2007, the petitioner had been working as private contractor and that w.e.f. 17.3.2007, he
had been engaged as pump operator on monthly salary of ` 3500/- and that he had worked upto
30.10.2007, for which ` 26,016/- were paid to him. Thereafter, he worked upto 18.9.2008 for
which, salary was being paid regularly to him. After 18.9.2008, he did not attend his duties and
absented himself. The contention of the respondent is further to this effect that when the residents
of the society had made complaints against him, the petitioner was called upon to explain his
position but of no avail and thus, he was issued chargesheet which was sent to him through
registered post but the same was not replied by him within the stipulated period i.e seven days from
the receipt of the same. Thus, a three members committee was constituted to conduct enquiry
against the petitioner for the allegations/charges leveled against him. It is further said that since the
petitioner had chosen not to participate in the enquiry proceedings and also did not file any reply to
the communications issued to him, there was no other option except to proceed against him exparte.
10. In support of his case, the petitioner has examined himself as PW-1. By way of his
chief examination, he has filed his affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and also tendered a certificate Ex. PW-1/B
(objected to). In his affidavit (Ex. PW-1/A), he stated that he had been engaged/appointed as pump
operator since 1991 and the respondent had also been taking the work of plumber from him. In
every calendar year, he had been completing 240 days. In the year, 2008, when Shri Mehar Chand
Guleria became the president of the society, he started harassing him. On 1.11.2009, his services
were wrongly/illegally terminated without serving, upon him, any chargesheet or conducting
preliminary enquiry. He had not been called by the enquiry officer. In the cross-examination, he
denied that Ex. PW-1/B (objected to) had not been issued by the president of the society. He further
denied to have got prepared a forged certificate on the letter pad of the society. He admitted that he
had been working with a private contractor. Further, explained that, on part time basis, he had been
working as such. He denied to have left the job on 18.9.2008, on his own. He further denied that
when he did not turn up to perform his job, the residents of the society made complaints against
him. He admitted that the society had issued him a chargesheet, which is Ex. R-1 and he did not
reply to the same. He explained that orally, he had a talk in this regard. He had also received
chargesheet Ex. R-2. He denied that the society had got conducted an enquiry against him and that
in the same, the charges, which had been leveled against him, stood proved. 11. When regard is
given to the affidavit, Ex. PW-1/A, of the petitioner, it is revealed that as per the version made
therein, he was removed from service w.e.f. 1.11.2009. It is to be clarified that when regard is given
to facts, as narated, in para no.4 of his claim petition, it is highlighted that his services had been
illegally terminated on 11.1.2009 without chargesheet and not as stated in the affidavit i.e
1.11.2009. In the affidavit, he has further stated that neither any chargesheet had been served upon
him nor he had been called by the enquiry officer. Before, I proceed further, it needs to be clarified
that the certificate Ex. PW-1/B, on which the petitioner has relied upon, in order to show that since
1991, he had been working as pump operator, has not been proved, in evidence, as per law. Its
perusal goes to show that one Shri Shami Sahni, President of the society had issued this certificate
but the petitioner had not examined said Shami Sahni. It is further to be noted that this certificate,
Ex. PW 1/B, had been received in evidence subject to objection. Since, the petitioner did not
examine Shri Shami Sahni, the author of this certificate, the same remained not to be proved in
accordance with law. Further, when regard is given to the affidavit of Shri Vijay Kumar, Ex. RW-
1/A, when he appeared in the witness box as RW-1, it has come on record that the petitioner had
been engaged as pump operator w.e.f. 17.3.2007. He has also stated that Ex. RW-1/M, is the receipt
as per which the salary /wages had been paid to the petitioner. This receipt also goes to show that
the petitioner had been paid salary from 17.3.2007 to 30.10.2007, total amounting to ` 26,016/-.
2901
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 23 vxLr] 2013@1 Hkknzin 1935
From the evidence, which has been led by the respondent, it needs to be believed that the petitioner
had been engaged as pump operator w.e.f. 17.3.2007 and not as alleged from the year, 1991. This
goes to show that on false/wrong facts, the petitioner has moved this Court. 12. It has been admitted
by the petitioner (PW-1) that he had received Ex. R-1 and Ex. R-2, to which, he did not reply. The
perusal of Ex. R 1 & Ex. R-2 goes to show that the petitioner had been made known that since
18.9.2008, he had been absenting himself from duties. Through, Ex. R-2, the petitioner had also
been asked to file his version, in writing, in regard of the failure of the inhabitants of the society to
have got water from 23.10.2008 (6:30 PM) till 24.10.2008 (9:00 AM). Since, the petitioner has
admitted to have received Ex, R-1 & Ex. R-2, this goes to show that he was not inclined to reply to
the communications which were being sent to him. In the evidence of Vijay Kumar (RW-1), it has
also come that Ex. RW-1/B is the copy of complaint. He further stated that Ex. PW-1/C is the letter,
as per which, the petitioner had been supplied enquiry report and other documents. Ex. RW-1/D, is
the letter dated 2.11.2008. Ex. PW-1/G is the memorandum and Ex. PW-1/H is its receipt. Ex. PW-
1/J, is the office order. In the cross-examination, he denied that no chargesheet had been supplied to
the petitioner and that he had not been called in the preliminary enquiry.
13. When regard is given to the evidence of Vijay Kumar (RW-1), it becomes quite clear
that the charges which had been leveled against the petitioner, were sent to him through letter Ex.
RW-1/C, which he refused to receive. As per this letter, he (petitioner) had been asked to join his
duties immediately. It is further borne out from the statement of RW-1 that vide office order dated
23.7.2009, Ex. RW-1/J, the services of the petitioner had been dismissed. Since, the petitioner had
failed to reply to the communications which had been issued to him, it cannot be said that he had
been deprived, by the respondent, a right of being heard before the enquiry committee. The
material, on record, goes to show that he had refused to turn up before the enquiry committee
despite having been afforded number of chances.
14. Although, the petitioner in his affidavit Ex PW-1/A, has stated that no enquiry had
been conducted against him and that he had not been served with the chargesheet but when regard
is given to the affidavit Ex. RW-1/A of Vijay Kumar (RW-1), the evidence of the petitioner (PW-1)
gets falsified. It is further borne out from Ex. RW-1/J (office order) that before dismissing the
petitioner from service, the respondent society had also taken the approval from the Assistant
Registrar. When such is the position, the petitioner fails to prove that he had not been afforded
opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry and that without following the principles of natural
justice, his services had been illegally terminated. I may mention that it was the conduct of the
petitioner, itself, which kept him away from the enquiry which had been initiated against him by
the enquiry committee. When such is the position, it cannot be said that he had not been afforded
opportunity of being heard before dismissing him from service, Consequently, the petitioner fails to
prove that his termination of services w.e.f. 11-1-2009 was in violation of the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Consequently, my answer to this issue is "No".
Issue No. 2.
15. Since, the petitioner has failed to prove 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
and as such the reference stands answered against him 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.
2902
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 23 vxLr] 2013@1 Hkknzin 1935
Announced in the open court today this day of 26th July, 2013 in the presence of parties
counsels.
By order,
A.S. JASWAL,
Presiding Judge,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla.
___________
IN THE COURT OF A. S. JASWAL, PRESIDING JUDGE, HP INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA
Ref. No.
:
115 of 2007
Instituted on :
24-9-2007
Decided on
:
6-7-2013
Heera Singh S/o Shri Chhaju Ram R/o Vilage Pandal (Jokhati), P.O. Badhokhari, Tehsil
Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.
. .Petitioner.
VS
M/s Himalya Chemical Ladhi, P.O Ghanagughat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan. H.P.
. .Respondent.
Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For petitioner
:
None.
For respondent :
None.
AWARD
The reference for adjudication, is as under:—
"Whether the action of the management of M/s Himalya Chemical Ladhi, P.O
Ghanagughat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan. HP to terminate the services of Shri
Heera Singh S/o Shri Chhaju Ram, ex-workman w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and not to paying
him balance amount of ` 5,56,295/- wages without complying the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 aleged by the workman is proper and justified? If
not, what relief of service benefits and amount of compensation to above
aggrieved workmen is entitled to?”
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initialy appointed as supervisor, on 1.1.1996,
by the respondent in order to supervise the various works of respondent as per appointment leter
dated 1.1.1996. At that time, he had been asured to get ` 2,000/- per month as wages/salary along-
with house rent, house electricity alowances, traveling alowance + water and diet alowances. He
was to get holiday for every Sunday, in a month, and if he had worked for any holiday, he was to
get wages for the same. After one year of continuous service, he was promoted and appointed as
manager by the respondent and his monthly salary was increased from ` 2,000/- to ` 4,000/- per
month along-with other alowances. In this way, he had been performing his duties, to the
2903
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 23 vxLr] 2013@1 Hkknzin 1935
satisfaction of his superiors, without any complaint, by completing 240 working days in each
calendar year. However, the respondent had been very iregular in making the payments of monthly
wages/salary + other alowances to him. It is aleged that he is entitled to the folowing amount on
account of monthly wages/salary, house rent etc.
a. Dues on account of salary upto 31/12/2005 after adjustment of the
payments of monthly wages/salary being made from time to time.
` 285830.00
b. House rent upto 31/12/2005
` 36,800.00
c. Interest on due salary and house rent upto 31/12/2005
` 18000.00
d. Miscelaneous charges
` 816.00
e. Amount spend by the petitioner as advocate fee, personal expenses
and other miscellaneous expenses incurred for perusing the cases in
different courts out of his own funds on the orders of the
respondents in case FIR No. 56/99 at Arki in Sate Vs. Hira Singh in
ACJM Court Nalagarh District Solan in Kamlesh Vs. Himalayan
Chemical M.A.C.T. II, Nalagarh.
` 10000.00
` 32000.00
` 30000.00
f. Electricity charges of respondent No. 1 paid by the petitoner.
` 1840.70
Total amount due and recoverable
` 577286.70
up to 31/12/2005 by the petitioner from the respondent.
Besides, the aforesaid amount of ` 577286.70, he is entitled for future wages/salary along-
with other benefits. Although, he had oraly requested the respondent to pay the above mentioned
dues, but of no avail. It is also aleged that he had given a demand notice and in consequence
thereof, the Labour Inspector-cum-Conciliation Oficer, Solan, had initiated conciliation
proceedings on 25.8.2005. Although, the respondent had been caled upon on 1.10.2005 and
31.10.2005 to atend the conciliation proceedings but they failed to do the needful. Thus, the
conciliation proceedings finaly concluded on 31.10.2005. Thereafter, he (petitioner) had filed an
application no. 27/2006 before this Court which was dismised on ground of maintainability with
liberty to approach the appropriate government for redresal of his grievances. Consequently, he
(petitioner) approached the Labour Commisioner and the reference came to be made to this Court.
It is further avered that he was retrenched without giving any prior notice and also paying
compensation. Since, he had already rendered more than nine years of continuous service, the
action of the respondent was in violation of the provisions of the Act. Against this backdrop, a
prayer has been made to award him ` 5,77,286.70 as back wages and other dues along-with interest
@ 12% per annum with cost of ` 5,000/-. It is further prayed that the direction be also isued to
respondent to pay him (petitioner) future wages/salary along-with other dues.
3. The petition has been contested by raising preliminary objection qua maintainability.
On merits, it has been avered that the petitioner has been paid al his dues til the time he was
working with the respondent. It is further avered that after 7.4.2000, the plant was closed as there
was dispute between the partners. It has been specificaly denied that an amount of ` 5,77,286.70 is
stil due from the respondent towards the petitioner.
4. By filing rejoinder, the petitioner reafirmed his own alegations by denying those of the
respondent.
5. It is to be noted that on 6.7.2013, when the case was fixed before this Court, none
appeared. This Court also took note of this fact that although, the reference had been received, in
this Court, on 24.9.2007 but it failed to see its logical end. The manner, in which, this case
remained to be adjourned, from time to time, compeled this Court to pas the final order when on the
2904
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 23 vxLr] 2013@1 Hkknzin 1935
fixed date i.e. 6.7.2013, none appeared for the parties. This Court has also considered this legal
aspect that a reference received from the appropriate government cannot be dismised in default.
Thus, it was decided to answer the reference, on the basis of the material, whichever is available
before this Court.
6. As per the contention of the petitioner, he had not been paid monthly wages/salary,
house rent etc. amounting to total ` 577286.70 and further that his services had been retrenched in
contravention of the mandatory provisions of the Act.
7. When regard is given to the reply, filed on behalf of the respondent, it is revealed that
the claim of the petitioner has been specificaly denied, as far as the aforesaid amount, in question,
is concerned. It has been specificaly avered that the petitioner had been paid al his dues til the time
he continued to work with the respondent. It has further been explained that on account of dispute
between the partners, the plant had to be closed on 7.4.2000. Although, it has been aleged by the
petitioner that he had been retrenched without giving any prior notice and paying compensation but
it has not been specificaly mentioned that on which date, month or year his services had been
retrenched. Although, he has claimed the amount, as aforesaid, i.e ` 577286.70, but in support of
his such contention, there is no substantive evidence. The aforesaid claim of the petitioner could
have been proved by leading evidence which, in instant case, has not been led.
8. For the reason that on the fixed date i.e 6.7.2013 neither the petitioner himself was
present nor his Counsel and also that none was present for the respondent, I am of the view that this
reference is required to be decided against the petitioner because from the material available before
this court, he has been unable to prove his entitlement for the amount in question i.e. ` 577286.70
allegedly due from the respondent and further that his alleged retrenchment is in contravention of
the provisions of the Act. Thus, what has been stated and observed above, I decide this reference
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:
6-7-2013
By order,
Sd/-
Presding Judge
Labour Court, Shimla.
_________
IN THE COURT OF A. S. JASWAL, PRESIDING JUDGE, HP INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
-CUM- LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA
Reference No.
:
55 of 2011
Instituted on
:
22-11-2011
Decided on
:
12-7-2013
Rishi Raj, (Retired Conductor) S/o late Shri Ram Lal Gupta R/o Vilage Mohari, P.O
Shoghi, Tehsil and District Shimla HP through Shri R.L Dogra, General Secretary, Himachal
Transport Works Union, Fay Lodge, Cart Road, Bus Stand Shimla-1.
. .Petitioner.
VS
Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla, H.P. . .Respondent.
2905
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 23 vxLr] 2013@1 Hkknzin 1935
Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For petitioner
:
Shri J. C. Bhardwaj, AR
For respondent :
Already exparte.
AWARD
The reference, for adjudication, is as under: —
“Whether demand of Shri R.L Dogra, General Secretary, Himachal Transport
Works Union, Fay Lodge, Cart Road, Bus Stand Shimla-1 vide demand notice
dated 25-5-2010 before the Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport
Corporation for encashment of compensatory leave to Shri Rishi Raj, (Retired
Conductor) S/o late Shri Ram Lal Gupta R/o Vilage Mohari, P.O Shoghi, Tehsil
and District Shimla HP as such encashment was also alowed to Shri Sant Ram
Retired Conductor who was similarly situated as Shri Rishi Raj, is legal and
justified? If yes, to what relief and compensation Shri Rishi Raj (Retired
Conductor) S/o late Shri Ram Lal Gupta is entitled to from the concerned
employer?”
2. The case of the petitioner is that before his retirement, he had earned 60 days of
compensatory leave, by working on the days of his weekly rest, on account of exigency of work
and shortage of staf, at Reckong-Peo. Under lawful instruction of competent authority, he had
performed operational duties on Sundays and other gazeted holidays. Although, he had requested
the competent authority to make payment of compensatory leave but of no avail. Even, in this
regard, he had made a writen representation to the Managing Director of HRTC, wherein, request
was made for payment of the accumulated compensatory leave but the needful was not done.
However, he was informed by Dy. Divisional Manager (Admn.), HRTC that as per rules, payment
for weekly rest cannot be alowed against compensatory leave as the same was not admisible in the
corporation. It is further aleged that as per the information, got obtained under RTI Act, 2005, it
was known that some employees of HRTC had been alowed the payment against the accumulated
compensatory leave and only, for this reason, the present reference had to be made to this Court.
Even, it was admited by the Regional Manager, HRTC, Reckong-Peo, where the petitioner had
remained posted, before his transfer to Shimla, that there has been accumulated 60 days in favour
of the petitioner for his having worked on weekly rest and for the same, no payment was made to
him. In a similar case, one Shri Sant Ram (Retired Inspector) had been paid his accumulated
compensatory leave for 64 days, which was in his credit, before retirement, by the HRTC Depot.
Solan. Inspite of, for the prevalent practice to make the payment for the accumulated compensatory
leave, the benefit was denied to the petitioner. On the same analogy on which said Sant Ram had
been paid for his accumulated compensatory leave, the petitioner also deserves to be paid for his
accumulated compensatory leave of 60 days.
3. Notice was isued to the respondent and it was represented by Shri C.D Negi, Advocate.
Despite having been aforded opportunities, the respondent failed to file reply. In these
circumstances, as per order dated 4-10-2012, the respondent was aforded last opportunity, to file its
reply, on 17-11-2012, on which date, none appeared for the respondent and for this reason, it was
proceeded against exparte.
4. By way of exparte evidence, the petitioner has examined himself and also tendered in
evidence documents.
5. Exparte arguments heard.
2906
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 23 vxLr] 2013@1 Hkknzin 1935
6. It is not a disputed fact, as is apparent from the material on record, that before his
retirement, the petitioner had earned compensatory leave for 60 days. The contention of the
petitioner is that the compensatory leave, which he had earned by working on his weekly rest days
and also performing operational duties on Sundays and other gazeted holidays, was required to be
encashed, which the competent authority of respondent corporation, did not alow. When, the
petitioner had been declined the encashment of the compensatory leave which he earned, then by
taking resort to RTI Act, 2005, he got obtained information in respect of one Shri Sant Ram,
Retired Inspector, who had encahed his compensatory leave for 64 days. On the same analogy, on
which said Sant Ram (Retired Inspector) had been paid for his accumulated compensatory leave for
64 days, the petitioner also sought his claim to encash 60 days compensatory leave, which he
earned before his retirement.
7.
While appearing in the witnes box as PW-1, the petitioner has supported al the
material facts as stated in the claim petition including the leter, copy of which is Ex. PA, which had
been sent by the Regional Manager, HRTC, Dhali to Regional Manager, HRTC Reckong-Peo. He
also tendered, in evidence, leter Ex. PB, which was writen by Regional Manager, HRTC, Reckong-
Peo, to Regional Manager, HRTC Dhali. Ex. PB-2, is the leter which he (PW-1), had sent to
Managing Director, HRTC, Shimla, requesting therein to release the payment of accumulated
Sunday rest in his favour. Ex. PC, is the copy of leter which had been writen by Regional Manager
(L&L), HRTC, Shimla to the Public information Oficer, HRTC, Shimla whereby it had been
informed that the compensatory leave wil lapse like the casual leave after pasing of calendar year
and no such leave wil be caried forward to the next year except the leave earned during the month
of December. It has also been stated by PW-1 that when, his 60 days compensatory leave was not
alowed to be encahsed, he got obtained information under the RTI Act, 2005, in respect of Shri
Sant Ram (Retired Inspector), posted at Solan. As per that information, copy of which is Ex. PF, it
had been informed that the encashment order of 64 days of compensatory leave under section 26 of
Transport Welfare Act, 1961 had been isued in favour of Shri Sant Ram, Retired Inspector (retired
on 30.6.1999) vide ofice order endorsement no. HRTC-SLN-T06 Inspector/Compensatory/99-7236
dated 18.11.1999 in compliance to Head Ofice Memo No. HO:4-5/W.Rest/96-Lab dated
22.10.1999. Said Sant Ram had been made payment of the compensatory leave vide receipt Ex.
PG/1.
8.
From the evidence of the petitioner (PW-1), it has been proved that before his
retirement, he had earned compensatory leave for 60 days, the encashment of which was not
alowed to him by the competent authority. On having got the information under the Right to
Information Act, 2005, he succeeded in proving that one Shri Sant Ram (Retired Inspector), had
been made payment for his 64 days of compensatory leave and that the payment in this regard, he
had received vide receipt Ex. PG/1. If, said Sant Ram (retired Inspector) who was working in the
HRTC, could have been paid payment for the compensatory leave, which he had earned, before his
retirement, on the same principle, the petitioner also becomes entitled to get his compensatory leave
encashed. I may observe that separate rules/principles cannot be applied to the employees working
in the same department/corporation. Since, the encashment of compensatory leave had been alowed
in favour of Shri Sant Ram, Retired Inspector, the petitioner, on the same analogy, is also required
to be made payment for his 60 days compensatory leave which he had earned by working on his
weekly rest days and performing operational duties on Sundays and other gazeted holidays. It is
further to be observed that the facts as stated by the petitioner, in his statement of claim and the
evidence led in support thereof, have gone unrebuted for the respondent to have failed to contest
the present proceedings. Consequently, for what has been stated and observed above, I hold that the
petitioner is entitled for encashment of his 60 days compensatory leave which he had earned prior
to his retirement and accordingly, the respondent is directed to make the payment to him for the
said compensatory leave of 60 days. Thus, the reference which has been made to this Court, on the
demand raised by Shri R.L Dogra, General Secretary, Himachal Transport Works Union, Fay
2907
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 23 vxLr] 2013@1 Hkknzin 1935
Lodge, Cart Road, Bus Stand Shimla-1 vide demand notice dated 25.5.2010 before the Managing
Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation for encashment of compensatory leave to Shri
Rishi Raj, (Retired Conductor) S/o late Shri Ram Lal Gupta R/o Vilage Mohari, P.O Shoghi, Tehsil
and District Shimla HP, stands answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent
corporation. 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 12th day of July, 2013.
By order,
A. S. JASWAL
Presiding Judge,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Shimla.
__________
IN THE COURT OF A. S. JASWAL, PRESIDING JUDGE, HP INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA
Reference No.
:
38 of 2010
Instituted on
:
12-4-2010
Decided on
:
3-7-2013
Sanjay Kumar Jhaa S/o Shri Mahavir Jhaa R/o Deepak Spinners Ltd. Baddi, District Solan,
H.P. Room No.-1 Polspin Colony, H.P.
. .Petitioner.
VS
M/s Deepak Spinners Ltd., Baddi, District Solan. H.P.
. .Respondent.
Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For petitioner
:
None
For respondent :
Shri Rajeev Sharma, Advocate.
AWARD
The reference, for adjudication, is as under: —
“Whether the action of Manager M/s Deepak Spinners Ltd., Baddi, District Solan
H.P. to terminate the service of Shri Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Mahavir Jhaa
workman w.e.f. 8-8-2008 on the basis of domestic enquiry where he was not given
ample opportunity of being heard, is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the
aggrieved workmand is entitled from the above employer ?”
2. Consequent upon the receiving of this reference in this Court, the petitioner had filed
claim petition wherein he state that he was served with a frivolous chargesheet wherein it was
aleged against him that on 8.8.2008 at about 10.00 AM, he had consumed liquor in his residential
block and indulged in scufle besides having abused his mother and wife. On account of his such
acts, his mother and wife sustained injuries and the production of the company also got hampered
2908
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 23 vxLr] 2013@1 Hkknzin 1935
as its co-workers/employees gathered at the main gate. To the chargesheet, he had filed reply, dated
19.8.2008, and Shri Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate was appointed as an enquiry oficer. As per the leter
of the enquiry oficer, he had been asked to appear at main gate on 2.9.2008 at 4.45 PM. On
2.9.2008, he appeared before the enquiry oficer and was told that the next date would be intimated
to him. Thereafter, he did not hear anything about the date of enquiry. Thereafter, on 15.10.2008,
he wrote a leter to the respondent company in order to convey him the date of enquiry and to pay
the suspension alowance as wel as salary for the month of April, 2008 which was not paid to him.
He also requested the respondent to take him back on duty. It is further said that vide leter dated
11.10.2008, he was intimated regarding the next date of enquiry, fixed for 1.11.2008, on which
date, he appeared before the enquiry oficer and the next date was fixed for 8.11.2008. On the fixed
date, the respondent management sought time to produce its witneses which it failed to produce on
the subsequent dates. However, on 10.1.2009, the respondent examined three witneses and he was
given time to cros- examine the witneses and also to produce his witneses on 17.1.2009. Since, on
the fixed date (17.1.2009), he was not wel, he moved an application, in this regard. Thereafter,
when he appeared before the enquiry oficer, he was not alowed to participate in the enquiry. It is
further said that the enquiry which had been conducted against him is a mere eye wash and was
conducted without folowing the rule of law and principles of domestic enquiry.
3. By filing reply, the respondent has raised preliminary objections inter- alia that the
petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and has suppresed the material facts and
that he has been estopped to file the petition by his own acts and conduct. On merits, it has been
aleged that on 17.1.2009, when the petitioner did not appear before the enquiry oficer he was
informed about the next date of hearing, which was fixed for 28.1.2009, through leter which was
communicated to him but despite that he failed to participate in the enquiry. Again, he was
intimated about the next date of hearing, fixed for 7.2.2009, but he again failed to appear. It is
further pleaded that on having been aforded three opportunities, when the petitioner failed to appear
before the enquiry oficer, he was proceeded against exparte and thereafter the case was fixed for
14.3.2009 for the evidence of the management. It is further avered that the petitioner had not
participated in the enquiry proceedings despite having due intimation. When the enquiry report had
been received, the petitioner had been isued 2nd show cause notice vide leter dated 13.4.2009,
which was received by him and he replied the same vide leter dated 14.4.2009. On having perused
his reply, his services were terminated/dismised w.e.f. 24.4.2009. Thus, the enquiry proceedings
had been conducted in accordance with law and as per the principles of natural justice.
4.
On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck on 25-6-2011.
1.
Whether the termination of the services of Shri Sanjay Kumar w.e.f. 8-8-2008 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.
Whether the petitioner was in gainful employment ?
. .OPR.
4.
Relief.
5.
Before, I proceed further it is pertinent to mention that although this case had been
fixed for the evidence of the petitioner since 19-1-2011 but despite having been afforded several
opportunities, he failed to lead any evidence in support of his case. Ultimately, when the petitioner
could not lead any evidence despite having been afforded several opportunities, on 3-7-2013, this
court ordered that on the basis of material available before it, this reference be decided accordingly.
2909
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 23 vxLr] 2013@1 Hkknzin 1935
6. For the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter, my findings on the aforesaid isues are as
under :—
Issue no. 1
No.
Issue no. 2
Becomes redundant.
Issue no. 3
No.
Relief.
Reference answered against the petitioner and in favour of respondent as per
award.
Issue No. 1
7. The contention of the petitioner is to this efect that w.e.f. 8.8.2008, in violation of the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and on the basis of domestic enquiry, in which he
was not given ample opportunity, of being heard, his services were ilegaly terminated. In support of
his such contention, the petitioner has failed to appear before this Court as his own witnes despite
having been aforded opportunities. It was for the petitioner to have proved that during domestic
enquiry, he had not been given ample opportunity of being heard. For the reason that he had failed
to examine himself, in support of his such contention or to lead any other evidence, I have been left
with no other alternative but to hold that the action of the respondent to terminate his services on
the basis of domestic enquiry is not ilegal. Thus, my answer to this isue is “No”.
Issue No. 2
8. For the failure of the petitioner to have proved isue no.1, this isue becomes redundant.
Issue No. 3
9. In support of this isue, the respondent has not led any evidence. On the basis of
material available before this Court and also the failure of the respondent to have led any evidence
in support of this isue, it is not proved, on record, that the petitioner is gainfuly employed. Thus,
my answer to this isue is “No”.
Relief
As a sequel to my findings on the aforesaid isues, the claim of the petitioner is dismised.
Consequently, the reference stands answered against him and in favour of 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 3rd July, 2013.
By order,
A. S. JASWAL
Presiding Judge,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Shimla
Camp at Nalagarh.
2910
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 23 vxLr] 2013@1 Hkknzin 1935
IN THE COURT OF A. S. JASWAL, PRESIDING JUDGE, HP INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA
Ref. No.
:
1 of 2013
Instituted on :
11-1-2013
Decided on
:
5-7-2013
Workers of M/s Landis + Gyr Ltd., EPIP, Phase I, VPO Than Tehsil Baddi, District Solan
through Shri Vishal Singh C/o Mahinder Kumar (near Time Techno Plast Ltd.,) Vilage Thana, P.O
Baddi, District Solan, H.P.
. .Petitioner.
VS
The Factory Manager/Occupier M/s Landis + Gyr Ltd., EPIP, Phase I, VPO Than Tehsil Baddi,
District Solan .
. .Respondent.
Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For petitioner
:
S/Shri Govind Sharma and Sunil Kumar, Workers.
For respondent :
Shri Rajeev Sharma, Advocate.
AWARD
The reference for adjudication, is as under:—
"Whether demands raised by the workers of M/s Landis + Gyr Ltd., EPIP, Phase
I, VPO Than Tehsil Baddi, District Solan through Shri Vishal Singh C/o
Mahinder Kumar (near Time Techno Plast Ltd.,) Vilage Thana, P.O Baddi,
District Solan, HP. Vide demand notice dated 29.5.2012 (copy enclosed) to be ful-
filed by the management of M/s Landis + Gyr Ltd., EPIP, Phase I, VPO Than
Tehsil Baddi, District Solan (pin code- 173205) are legal and justified? If yes,
what monetary and other benefits the concerned workmen are entitled to from
the above employer/management?”
2. On 5.7.2013, when the case was fixed before this Court, S/Shri Govind Sharma and
Sunil Sharma workers of M/s Landis + Gyr Ltd., EPIP, Phase I, VPO Than Tehsil Baddi, District
Solan appeared and stated that already, a setlement has taken place between the workers and
management/respondent. On the said date, Shri Rajeev Sharma, Advocate was also present for the
respondent along-with Shri Rajesh Thakur (HR). S/Shri Govind Sharma and Sunil Sharma
(workers), aforesaid, also produced the registered setlement, so arived at between the workers and
management, before this Court.
3. Since, to this Court, it appeared that a setlement has already been taken place between
the parties, as per registered setlement, produced, the composite statement of S/Shri Govind
Sharma and Sunil Sharma (workers) was recorded. Shri Rajesh Thakur (HR) admited, as per his
separate statement, that a setlement, between the parties, has been efected vide Ex. PW-1/A. His
such statement, made before this Court, was also signed/endorsed by Counsel Shri Rajeev Sharma,
Advocate.
4. Since, as per Ex. PW-1/A, registered setlement, the dispute between the workers of
M/s Landis + Gyr Ltd., EPIP, Phase I, VPO Than Tehsil Baddi, District Solan stands already
2911
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 23 vxLr] 2013@1 Hkknzin 1935
resolved, this reference stands answered in terms of the registered setlement Ex. PW-1/A which had
been arived at between the parties. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government
for publication in oficial gazette. File, after completion be consigned to records.
Announced:
5/7/2013
By order,
Sd/-
Presiding Judge,
Labour Court, Shimla.
__________
[Authoritative English Text of this Department’s Notification No. Ayur-A(3)-3/2009 dated 14th
August,2013 as required under clause(3) of Article 348 of the Constitution of India].
AYURVEDA DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATION
Shimla-171002, the 14th August, 2013
No. Ayur-A(3)-3/2009.—In exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of
the Constitution of India, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to make the following
amendment/corrections in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Botanist, Class-
II(Non-Gazetted), Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2013 notified vide this Department
Notification No. Ayur-A(3)-3/2009 dated 16th February, 2013.
1. Short title & Commencement.—(1) These rules may be called the Himachal Pradesh,
Department of Ayurveda, Botanist, Class-II(Non-Gazetted), Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 2013.
(2) These rules shall come into force from the date of publication in the Rajpatra,
Himachal Pradesh.
2. Amendment of Annexure-“A”.— (1) (a) Para-2 of the Column No. 6 in line three the
word ‘contact’ before ‘appointment’ may be substituted as ‘contract’.
(b) Column No. 10 of Page No.-15 the words ‘whether By direct recruitment’ may be read
as ‘whether by direct recruitment’.
(c) Column No. 11 of Page No. 15 the words ‘recruitment By promotion’ may be read as
‘recruitment by promotion’.
(d) The words ‘be taken into accout’ appearing at second line of the Explanation-II(I) may
be read as ‘be taken into account’.
(e) The word ‘provisio’ appearing in Explanation Page-18 may be read as ‘proviso’.
By order,
Sd/-
SANJAY GUPTA
Principal Secretary (Ayurveda).
2912
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 23 vxLr] 2013@1 Hkknzin 1935
AYURVEDA DEPARTMENT
CORRIGENDUM
Shimla-2, 12th August, 2013
No. Ayur-B(2)-2/2011.—Please read words “recruitment by promotion” in place of words
“recruitment By promotion” appearing at Column No. 11 of Annexure-“A” of the Recruitment &
Promotion Rules for the post of Anaesthetist, Class-I(Gazetted), issued/published vide this
Department Notification No. Ayur-B(2)-2/2011 dated 26-02-2013.
By order,
Sd/-
Principal Secreatary Ayurveda.
__________
c vnkyr eSfjt vkWfQlj ,oa mi&e.My vf/kdkjh ¼uk0½] cM+lj] ftyk gehjiqj] fgekpy izns'k
1- Jh fryd jkt iq= Jh eaxy flag] xkao ttjh] Mk0 jSyh ttjh] rglhy cM+lj] ftyk
gehjiqj] fgekpy izns'kA
2- liuk iq=h Jh gjcal yky] xkao o Mk0 fupkj] rglhy fupkj] ftyk fdUukSj ¼fg0 iz0½
- -izkFkÊx.kA
cuke
vke turk
fo"k;-&&b'rgkj izdkf'kr djus ckcr izkFkZuk&i= tsj /kkjk 15] LiS'ky eSfjt ,sDV] 'kknh fnukad
9&8&2013 djus gsrqA
mijksDr izkFkÊx.k us bl vnkyr esa izkFkZuk&i= tsj /kkjk 15 is'k fd;k gS fd mUgksaus fnukad
9&8&2013 dks efUnj esa 'kknh dj yh gSA mudh mijksDr 'kknh jftLVMZ dh tk,A vr% bl b'rgkj
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k }kjk vke turk dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn bl 'kknh ckjs fdlh dks dksbZ
,rjkt gks rks og bl U;k;ky; esa fnukad 16&9&2013 ls igys ,rjkt ntZ djok ldrk gSA ckn fe;kn
xqtjus ds ckn dksbZ Hkh ,rjkt ugha lquk tk,xk rFkk mijksDr 'kknh tsj /kkjk 15] LiS'ky eSfjt ,sDV ds
rgr ntZ dj nh tk,xhA
vkt fnukad 14&8&2013 dks gekjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr ls tkjh gqvkA
eksgjA
gLrk{kfjr@&
eSfjt vkWfQlj ,oa mi&e.My vf/kdkjh ¼uk0½]
cM+lj] ftyk gehjiqj] fgekpy izns'kA
2913
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 23 vxLr] 2013@1 Hkknzin 1935
c vnkyr eSfjt vkWfQlj ,oa mi&e.My vf/kdkjh ¼uk0½] cM+lj] ftyk gehjiqj] fgekpy izns'k
1- Jh txnh'k pUn iq= Jh Hkknh jke] xkao dj;kyk] Mk0 dB;k.kk] rglhy cM+lj] ftyk
gehjiqj] fgekpy izns'kA
2- lquhrk nsoh iq=h Jh cUlh jke] xkao dj;kyk] Mk0 dB;k.kk
- -izkFkÊx.kA
cuke
vke turk
fo"k;-&&b'rgkj izdkf'kr djus ckcr izkFkZuk&i= tsj /kkjk 15] LiS'ky eSfjt ,sDV] 'kknh fnukad
8&8&2013 djus gsrqA
mijksDr izkFkÊx.k us bl vnkyr esa izkFkZuk&i= tsj /kkjk 15 is'k fd;k gS fd mUgksaus fnukad
8&8&2013 dks efUnj esa 'kknh dj yh gSA mudh mijksDr 'kknh jftLVMZ dh tk,A vr% bl b'rgkj
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k }kjk vke turk dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn bl 'kknh ckjs fdlh dks dksbZ
,rjkt gks rks og bl U;k;ky; esa fnukad 16&9&2013 ls igys ,rjkt ntZ djok ldrk gSA ckn fe;kn
xqtjus ds ckn dksbZ Hkh ,rjkt ugha lquk tk,xk rFkk mijksDr 'kknh tsj /kkjk 15] LiS'ky eSfjt ,sDV ds
rgr ntZ dj nh tk,xhA
vkt fnukad 14&8&2013 dks gekjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr ls tkjh gqvkA
eksgjA
gLrk{kfjr@&
eSfjt vkWfQlj ,oa mi&e.My vf/kdkjh ¼uk0½]
cM+lj] ftyk gehjiqj] fgekpy izns'kA
_________
Before the Marriage Officer (SDM), Sub-Division Nichar at Bhabanagar,
District Kinnaur (H. P.)
In the matter of :
Shri Shashi Pal s/o Shri Menku Ram and Reeta Kumari d/o Shri Mansa Ram, District
Kinnaur (H. P.)
. . Applicant.
Versus
General Public
NOTICE
WHEREAS Shri Shashi Pal and Reeta Kumari has presented an application in this Court duly
sported by an affidavit stating therein that they have solemnized marriage on 15th May, 2011 and
have been residing at Reckong Peo since 15th May, 2011 as husband and wife. They have further
requested to register their marriage.
2914
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 23 vxLr] 2013@1 Hkknzin 1935
Therefore, notice is hereby issued to General public if any one has any objection for
registration of marriage, he/she may file his/her oral/written objection before the undersigned on or
before 12-9-2013 failing which it will be presumed that nobody has any objection for registration
of marriage and the order under the act ibid will be issued.
Issued under my hand and seal of the Court today on 12th August, 2013.
Seal.
Sd/-
Marriage Officer (SDM),
Sub-Division Nichar at Bhabanagar,
District Kinnaur (H. P.).
fu;U=d] eqnz.k rFkk ys[ku lkexzh] fgekpy izns'k] f'keyk&5 }kjk eqfnzr rFkk izdkf'kr