jkti=] fgekpy izns'k
fgekpy izns'k jkT; 'kklu }kjk izdkf'kr
f”keyk] lkseokj] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
fgekpy izns'k ljdkj
LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATION
Shimla-2, 29th January, 2014
No. Sharm (A) 7-1/2005-IV (Award).—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, Government of Himachal
Pradesh.
253&jkti=@2014&24&2&2014 ¼6873½
6874
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
Sr.
No.
Case No.
Title of the Case
Date of
Award
1.
35/2009
S/Shri Neeraj Kumar V/s Sarvotam Remedies Ltd.
Baddi.
2-12-2013
2.
46/2013
Sh. Sanjay Sharma V/s M/s Sanchar Laboratories
Ltd.Baddi.
18-12-2013
3.
47/2013
Sh. Som Pal V/S
-do-
18-12-2013
4.
48/2013
Sh. Santosh Sharma V/S
-do-
18-12-2013
5.
49/2013
Ms Susma Devi V/s
-do-
18-12-2013
6.
50/2013
Sh. Anil Kumar V/s
-do-
18-12-2013
7.
51/2013
Sh. Jitender Kumar V/s
-do-
18-12-2013
8.
52/2013
Sh. Suresh Kumar V/s
-do-
18-12-2013
9.
53/2013
Sh. Jeet Ram V/s
-do-
18-12-2013
10.
63/2010
Sh. Rajesh Chauhan V/s M/s Tigakasha Metallic
Ltd.
2-1-2014
11.
64/2010
Sh. Pardeep Sharma V/s
-do-
2-1-2014
12.
65/2010
Sh. Rajeev Sharma V/s
-do-
2-1-2014
13.
103/2007
Sh. Mansa Ram V/s Ex Engg. HPSEB
14-1-2014
14.
97/2013
Employees Union V/s G.M. Clarkes Hotel, Shimla.
10-1-2014
15.
54/2013
Sh. Ram Singh V/s M/s Deepak Enterpries
Parwanoo.
9-1-2014
16.
21/2010
Sh. Rishi Kumar V/s M/s Kilitch Drugs Nalagarh
13-1-2014
By order,
(R. D. DHIMAN),
Pr.Secretary ( Labour & Employment).
____________
IN THE COURT OF A.S. JASWAL, PRESIDING JUDGE, HP INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA.
Ref no. 35 of 2009.
Instituted on 27.4.2009.
Decided on 2.12.2013.
Neeraj Kumar S/o Shri Bihari Lal R/o VPO Bhangwar, Tehsil & District Kangra, HP.
.. Petitioner.
Vs.
The General Manager, M/s Sarvotam Remedies Ltd., Katha Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District
Solan, HP.
.. Respondent.
Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For petitioner
:
Shri Bhagwan Chand, Advocate.
For respondent
:
Shri Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.
AWARD
The reference for adjudication, is as under:—
6875
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
‘‘Whether termination of the services of Sh. Neeraj Kumar S/o Shri Bihari Lal by the
Management of M/S Sarvotam Remedies Ltd. Katha Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District
Solan, H.P. w.e.f. 20/5/2008 without following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, is legal and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits including re-
instatement, back wages, seniority and compensation the aggrieved workman is entitle
to ?”
2.
Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that consequent upon appointment letter dated
30.11.2006, he joined his duties, as Technician, in the respondent management on 1.12.2006.
Although, he had worked w.e.f. 1.12.2006 to 19.5.2008 but on 20.5.2008, his services were
terminated vide show cause notice dated 19.5.2008, the reply to which, he had filed on 22.5.2008.
In fact, the charges, as framed, against him, in the show cause notice dated 19.5.2008, were totally
false and baseless. During his duties, he (petitioner) had not committed any misconduct. It is further
alleged that the evidence of Naveen Kumar had been recorded by the respondent by putting him
under fear/threat. As a matter of fact, he (Naveen Kumar) had also been threatened to be implicated
in false and frivolous criminal case. Before terminating his services, the respondent had not
conducted any enquiry and even no opportunity was given of being heard. Except, show cause
notice dated 19.5.2008, he (petitioner) had not been issued any termination letter. Initially, after the
issuance of show cause notice, he (petitioner) was not allowed to enter the premises of the
respondent company and ultimately, he was informed, orally, that his services had stood
terminated. Even, from the show cause notice dated 19.5.2008, it is borne out that the respondent
had not issued any termination notice to him. In this way, the respondent had violated the
provisions of section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred
as Act). In lieu of his termination, no compensation was paid. Since, his dismissal is against the
provisions of law, he requires to be reengaged, in service, with all consequential benefits.
3.
The petition has been contested on having raised preliminary objection that the
petitioner has not come before this Court with clean hands because he suppressed material facts. As
a matter of fact, after issuing show cause notice dated 19.5.2008, a domestic enquiry had been
ordered to be conducted against him (petitioner). On merits, it has been asserted that the petitioner
had joined the services of the respondent on 1.12.2006 and that on 15.5.2008, when he (petitioner)
was on duty, in the medication area, along-with one Mr. Naveen Kumar, during A shift from 700
hours to 1500 hours, a piece of Bop Tape was found, floating in medication tank no. 2, by Quality
Control Chemist and on enquiry, it was found that the petitioner had intentionally put the Bop tape
in the medication tank with a motive to cause loss. In these circumstances, a show cause notice,
dated 19.5.2008, was issued to him because his such act came within the ambit of misconduct as
per model standing orders i.e. Industrial Employment Standing Orders, H.P Rules 1973. On
account of the aforesaid act of the petitioner, the respondent had suffered a huge loss and its
reputation also got lowered down in the market. Consequent upon the high quality alert, which had
to be raised, the medicines were put on hold. After the intervention of high level quality team, the
medicines which were put on hold, were cleared. To the notice dated 19.5.2008, the petitioner had
submitted his replies dated 22.5.2008 and 27.5.2008. On having considered his replies, aforesaid,
the respondent, vide letter dated 30.5.2008, took a decision to hold a domestic enquiry against the
petitioner and for that purpose Shri Ashok Kumar, Assistant Manager (production), was appointed
as an enquiry officer and Shri Harpreet Singh (Executive HR), as management representative. The
copy of the above said letter, dated 30.5.2008, was sent at the address of the petitioner through
speed post. As per letter dated 30.5.2008, the petitioner had been requested to present himself in
HR department at 1500 hours on 6.6.2008, for the purpose of domestic enquiry but he failed to do
the needful. Thereafter, vide letter dated 10.6.2008, he was intimated that the next date, fixed for
the enquiry, was 30.6.2008, and that the said letter had been sent to him through registered post.
But again, he failed to appear before the enquiry officer and as such proceeded against exparte.
Thereafter, vide order dated 10.7.2008, respondent management produced three witnesses and their
6876
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
statements were got recorded by the enquiry officer who submitted his enquiry report on 19.6.2008.
After the receipt of the enquiry report, the respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner
as to why his services be not terminated and he was also requested to submit his explanation within
three days. Along-with that show cause notice, the petitioner had also been sent the copy of the
enquiry report. It is alleged that the petitioner had refused to accept the show cause notice which
was accompanied with enquiry report. In these circumstances, the services of the petitioner were
terminated vide letter dated 8.8.2008. It has been denied that the principles of natural justice and
also the provisions the Act had not been complied with. On the contrary, it is quite clear that
despite having been afforded ample opportunities, the petitioner had failed to participate in the
enquiry and for this reason, the enquiry officer had no option but to proceed against him exparte. It
is further maintained that the show cause notice, dated 19.5.2006, itself shows that the services of
the petitioner had been placed under suspension w.e.f. 20.5.2008 and that when he did not submit
any explanation, his services were terminated. It has been specifically denied that the respondent
had violated the provisions of sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act. Other allegations denied.
4.
Rejoinder not filed. On the pleadings of the parties, issue no.1, which had been
framed on 17.5.2010, was re-casted as per order dated 23.11.2010. The issues, thus so framed, are
as under:
1.
Whether the services of workman Neeraj Kumar have been ruminated without
following the provisions of Industrial disputes Act, 1947 in an illegal manner as
alleged?
..OPP.
2.
If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioner is entitled to service
benefits as prayed?
..OPP.
3.
Relief:
5.
I have heard 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
Yes.
Issue no. 2
Entitled to reinstatement with seniority and continuity but without
back wages.
Relief.
Reference answered in favour of the petitioner, per operative part of
award.
Reasons for findings
Issue no. 1
7.
Being interlinked, both these issues are taken up together for discussion and
decision.
8.
When regard is given to the statement of claim, filed by the petitioner, it is revealed
that consequent upon show cause notice dated 19.5.2008, his services had stood terminated on
20.5.2008. According to the petitioner, no enquiry had been conducted against him before
terminating his services and further that he was not given any opportunity of being heard. He
asserted his termination to be violative of the provisions of the Act and also against the provisions
6877
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
of law. On the other hand, the respondent had taken a specific plea that when, on 15.5.2008, during
shift ‘A’ (700 hours to 1500 hours), the petitioner was on duty in the medication area, along-with
one Mr. Naveen Kumar, a piece of Bop Tape was found, floating in medication tank no.2, by the
Quality Control Chemist and on enquiry, it was found that the petitioner had intentionally put the
Bop tape in the medication tank with a motive to cause loss to the respondent. In order to explain
his position, he had been issued notice dated 19.5.2008, which he replied on 22.5.2008 and also by
another reply dated 27.5.2008, which, when considered, were not found to be satisfactory and thus,
it was ordered, vide letter dated 30.5.2008, that a domestic enquiry be held against him for which
Shri Ashok Kumar was appointed as enquiry officer and Harpreet Singh as management
representative. The contention of the respondent is further to this effect that when the petitioner had
failed to appear in the enquiry proceedings despite having been issued the copy of letter dated
30.5.2008 and other relevant documents, pertaining to the appointment of enquiry officer and
management representative, he was proceeded against exparte and on the basis of exparte evidence,
so led by the respondent management, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 29.7.2008, which
had been sent to the petitioner along-with show cause notice asking him as to why his services were
not terminated but that notice was refused to be accepted by him. Thus, his services were
terminated vide letter dated 8.8.2008.
9.
From the stand, which has been taken by the respondent, it is highlighted that before
terminating the services of the petitioner, an enquiry had been got conducted against him in which,
the petitioner had not participated despite having been issued notices by the enquiry officer. In his
claim petition, the petitioner has specifically asserted that except show cause notice, dated
19.5.2008, he had not been issued any termination letter. This goes to show that as per the
petitioner, he had not received the letter dated 30.5.2008, as per which, the respondent had ordered
to hold domestic enquiry against him and for that purpose, appointed Shri Ashok Kumar as enquiry
officer and Shri Harpreet Singh, management representative.
10.
When the petitioner appeared in the witness box as PW-1, he filed his affidavit,
wherein he stated that to the show cause notice dated 19.5.2008, he had filed reply dated 22.5.2008.
He further stated that the respondent company had not conduced any enquiry against him before
terminating his services. He was also not associated during the enquiry, as alleged by the
respondent company. The alleged letters sent through registered/speed post had not been served
upon him. Even, the copy of enquiry report, filed by the respondent company, along-with the reply,
had not been served upon him. He had also not been issued termination letter. Only, he had been
intimated orally that his services had stood terminated. In the cross-examination, he admitted that to
the show cause notice dated 19.5.2008, copy of which is Ex. RA, he had filed reply on 22.5.2008,
the copy of which is Ex. RB. To the said show cause notice Ex. RA, he had also filed another reply
dated 27.5.2008, the copy of which is Ex. RC. He explained that the second reply had been
submitted by him under the pressure of management. He denied to have received letters dated
30.5.2008, the copies of which are mark X to X-2, regarding holding of enquiry against him and
also the appointment of management representative as well as enquiry officer. He admitted that his
address is R/o Village Bangwar, District Kangra, HP. He denied that he was residing at Pinjore, as
per the address given in mark X. He admitted that letter mark X to X-2 had been sent to him, vide
mark X-3 but he denied to have received the same. He had also not received letter dated 10.6.2008,
mark X-4, sent through registered letter mark X-5. He does not know that thereafter exparte
enquiry had been conducted against him. He denied that enquiry report had been served upon him
through Shri K. Linga Reddy who was residing at Pinjore and that he had refused to receive the
same after going through its contents. He also denied to have received second show cause notice
dated 4.8.2008, mark X-7 and dismissal order dated 8.8.2008, mark X-8. He had no knowledge that
his services had been terminated on 8.8.2008. These days he is working in ITC Company at Baddi.
He denied that before the Labour Officer, the management had told that he (PW-1), had not been
co-operating in the enquiry which was ordered against him.
6878
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
11.
RW-1, Shri K.S. Palia, in his affidavit, Ex. RW-1/A, has stated that on 5.5.2008
during shift ‘A’ from 700 hours to 1500 hours when the petitioner was on duty in the medication
area, along-with one Mr. Naveen Kumar, a piece of Bop Tape was found floating in medication
tank no. 2 and on enquiry, it was found that the petitioner had intentionally put the Bop tape in the
medication tank with a motive to cause loss to the respondent. Thereupon, he was issued show
cause notice dated 19.5.2008, the copy of which is Ex. RA and the replies to which he filed are Ex.
RB and Ex. RC. Since, the replies, filed by him, were found not to be satisfactory, it was decided to
conduct domestic enquiry against him vide letter dated 30.5.2008, copy of which is Ex. R-2. Ex. R-
3 and Ex. R-4, are the letters as per which Shri Harpreet Singh was appointed as management
representative and Ashok Kumar as enquiry officer respectively. The aforesaid letters had been sent
to the petitioner through speed post, the receipt of which is Ex. R-5. Vide letter dated 30.5.2008
(Ex. R-2), the petitioner had been asked to appear before the enquiry officer in HR department on
6.6.2008, at 1500 hours for the purpose of domestic enquiry but he failed to appear and thereafter
letter, dated 10.6.2008, was issued as per which the next date of enquiry was fixed for 30.6.2008.
Both these letters had been issued on the Pinjore address of the petitioner as well as on the address
of his native Village through registered post. However, the petitioner did not appear on 30.6.2008,
and was proceeded against exparte. The date for recording the evidence of the management was
fixed for 10.7.2008 on which date, Jani Sheikh, V.Srimanaryan and Naveen Kumar were examined.
Thereafter, the enquiry officer submitted his report. Ex. R-8, is the copy of enquiry proceedings and
Ex. R-9, that of enquiry report. After the receipt of the enquiry report, the respondent issued a show
cause notice dated 4.8.2008 and sent the same to the petitioner, on his Pinjore address, by hand,
through Shri K. Lingareddy, who was working in the production department. The petitioner, on
having read the same, refused to receive it. Ex. R-11 is the copy of second show cause notice which
had been sent, by hand, vide Ex. R-12. Thereafter, the respondent terminated/dismissed the services
of the petitioner vide letter dated 8.8.2008, the copy of which is Ex. R-13. In the cross-examination,
he stated that the appointment of the enquiry officer had been made by Mahesh Bhatt, Plant Head.
AD slip had not been sent along-with letter for holding enquiry against the petitioner. The
registered letters which had been sent, were received un-served. The letter containing enquiry
report which had been sent by hand, was not having cover note. It was also not disclosing as to
which document had been sent through it. He admitted that at the time of enquiry, petitioner was
their employee. He denied that after 19.5.2008, the petitioner was not allowed to enter the
company.
12.
RW-2, Ashok Kumar, in his affidavit, Ex. RW-2/A, has stated that he had been
appointed as enquiry officer to conduct domestic enquiry against the petitioner. He had issued a
letter to the petitioner to be present in the HR Department at 1500 hours on 6.6.2008 for the
purpose of domestic enquiry. The respondent had supplied to him the copy of show cause
notice/chargesheet dated 9.5.2008 (should have been 19.5.2008), along-with the reply, submitted
by the petitioner, to the show cause notice dated 9.5.2008 (should have been 19.5.2008). Despite
intimation which had been sent to the petitioner through registered post, he had not appeared on
6.6.2008. In view of the principles of natural justice, one more opportunity was given to the
petitioner to appear in the enquiry on 30.6.2008, vide letter dated 10.6.2008, which was sent to him
through registered post but he again failed to appear. Thus, he was left with no other alternative but
to proceed him against exparte vide order dated 30.6.2008 and fixed the enquiry for recording the
evidence of the management for 10.7.2008. On that date, three witnesses namely Jani Sheikh, V.
Sriramnaryan and Naveen Kumar were examined. Thereafter, he submitted his enquiry report as
per which the charges against the petitioner had been found to be proved and he submitted the
enquiry report along-with enquiry proceedings. In the cross-examination, he expressed his lack of
knowledge that the letters which had been sent to petitioner were not received by him. He denied
not to have conducted a fair enquiry.
13.
RW-3, Shri Prithi Singh Verma, Labour Inspector, Baddi has stated that during
conciliation proceedings, reply had been filed from the side of the management, copy of which is
6879
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
Ex. RW-3/A. In the cross-examination, he expressed his lack of knowledge to state that regarding
that reply, the conciliation officer had enquired from Neeraj Kumar or not.
14.
It is true that Shri Ashok Kumar (RW-2) has stated in his affidavit that he had been
appointed as enquiry officer in order to conduct domestic enquiry against the petitioner and that he
had directed the petitioner to remain present in the HR department at 1500 hours on 6.6.2008 but
when regard is given to his evidence, it is not proved that the letters, which had been sent to the
petitioner, were received by him. In his cross-examination, it has been stated by him that he does
not know as to whether letters which had been sent to the petitioner, had not been received by him.
Here, I would like to point out that in his evidence, the petitioner (PW-1), has specifically stated not
to have received the letters from the enquiry officer. The plea of the respondent is also to this effect
that the copies of enquiry report and enquiry proceedings, had been sent to the petitioner, by hand,
through K. Lingareddy but he had refused to receive the same. I may mention that in this case, the
said K. Lingareddy has not been examined. Since, from the very beginning the petitioner was
disputing to have received the letters/notices sent to him by the enquiry officer, it was upon the
respondent to have proved their service upon the petitioner by examining the concerned official
from the postal department who had delivered those letters to the petitioner. Moreover, in the cross-
examination of K.S. Palia (RW-1), it has come that along-with the letters which had been sent to
the petitioner, no ADs were attached. He further made it clear that along-with the letter, through
which enquiry report had been sent, there was no AD. His evidence further goes to show that the
registered letters which had been sent were received un-served. This goes to show that as per this
witness, the letters which had been sent to the petitioner had not been served. When, such is the
position, on record, it has not been proved that the petitioner had been intimated regarding the date
(6.6.2008), which the enquiry officer had fixed for the domestic enquiry. Similarly, it has further
not been proved that the letter, dated 10.6.2008, had been received by the petitioner. For the failure
of the respondent to have proved, on record, that the petitioner had been intimated regarding the
date of enquiry and further that second show cause notice, accompanied by copy of the enquiry
report had been refused to be accepted by the petitioner, the termination of the petitioner as per
letter dated 8.8.2008, copy of which is Ex. R-13, can be said to have been passed, on having
violated the principles of natural justice as well as without affording opportunity, of being heard, to
the petitioner. Here, I may like to point out that the second show cause notice, copy of which is Ex.
R-11, had been allegedly sent to the petitioner, by hand, through K. Lingareddy but said K.
Lingareddy has not been examined before this Court. As per the respondent, the petitioner had
refused to accept the service of the notice after having read its contents. It was only K. Lingareddy,
who could have stated in this regard, on oath, before this Court. I may further like to point out that
as per the contention of the respondent, as per show cause notice dated 19.5.2008, copy of which is
Ex. RA, the petitioner had been put under suspension with immediate effect from 20.5.2008. If he
had been put under suspension, the authority concerned was required to fix the place where he was
to remain during the period of suspension. If the same had been done, the enquiry officer could
have got the service of letters/notices containing the dates of the enquiry effected upon the
petitioner either by hand or through post on the address of the place where the petitioner was to
remain present during the period of suspension. It is further to be noted that there is no such
material, on record, which could go to show that during the period, the petitioner had remained
under suspension, he was paid any suspension allowance. Thus, taking into consideration the
aforesaid facts and circumstances and also the observations, as recorded above, I without hesitation
hold that the petitioner has been able to prove that his services had been terminated without
following the provisions of the Act as well as principles of natural justice.
15.
Now, it is to be seen that what service benefits, the petitioner is entitled to. In the
evidence of the petitioner (PW-1), it has come that he has been working in an ITC Company at
Baddi these days. His evidence further makes it clear that since the time his services were
terminated he started working in the said company. In number of judgments of Hon’ble Apex
6880
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
Court, it has been held that in the event of reinstatement of a worker, the grant of back wages is not
automatic. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2010 (1) SLJ S.C 70, M/s Ritu Marbals Vs.
Prabhakant Shukla has ruled that “full back wages cannot be granted mechanically, upon a
order of termination be declared illegal. It is further held that reinstatement must not be
accompanied by payment of full back wages even for the period when the workman remained out
of service and contributed little or nothing to the Industry”.
16.
Consequently, for what has been stated and observed above, the petitioner is held
entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity and seniority but without back wages. Thus, both
these issues are decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
Relief.
As a sequel to my findings on the aforesaid issues, the claim of the petitioner is allowed and
the petitioner is ordered to be reinstated in service forth-with with seniority and continuity but
without back wages. 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 official gazette. File, after completion be consigned to records.
Announced in the open court today this day of 2nd December, 2013.
(A.S. JASWAL) presiding Judge,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Shimla.
__________
Ref. 46 of 2013
Sh. Sanjay Sharma V/s M/s Sancheez Laboratories P. Ltd. Baddi
18.12.2013:-
Present:—None for the Parties.
Notice were issued to the petitioner (Sanjay Sharma) and employer/Managing Director, M/s
Sancheez Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd. Village Kunjhal Teh. Baddi, District Solan, HP As per the
reports, which have been made on the registered letters, the company ( M/s Sancheez Laboratories
(Pvt.) Ltd. Village Kunjhal Teh. Baddi, District Solan, HP), Stands closed. On the registered letter
which had been sent to the petitioner, it has been reported that he has left the place of his address.
I have considered the aforesaid reports, which have been made on the registered letters,
accompanied with Ads, through which notices had been sent to the parties. Since, the Factory in
which the petitioner was employed/working stands closed and he, also, as reported, has left the
place where he was residing, as per the address given in the reference, I am of the view that in these
circumstances, it will be very difficult for this Court to get effected service upon the parties.
Further, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose is likely to be served by sending the notices, on
the addresses, as have been given in the reference.
Faced with such a situation, it would not be possible for this Court to answer the reference
which has been made by the appropriate government. Accordingly, the same stands disposed of as
un-answered for the reasons, as mentioned above. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the
6881
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
appropriate government for publication in the office gazette, File, after completion, be consigned to
records.
Announced:
18.12.2013
Sd/-
Presiding Judge
Labour Court, Shimla.
____________
Ref. 47 of 2013
Sh. Som Pal V/s M/s Sancheez Laboratories P. Ltd. Baddi
18.12.2013:—
Present:—None for the Parties.
Notice were issued to the petitioner (Som Pal) and employer/Managing Director, M/s
Sancheez Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd. Village Kunjhal Teh. Baddi, District Solan, HP As per the
reports, which have been made on the registered letters, the company (M/s Sancheez Laboratories
(Pvt.) Ltd. Village Kunjhal Teh. Baddi, District Solan, HP), Stands closed. On the registered letter
which had been sent to the petitioner, it has been reported that he has left the place of his address.
I have considered the aforesaid reports, which have been made on the registered letters,
accompanied with Ads, through which notices had been sent to the parties. Since, the Factory in
which the petitioner was employed/working stands closed and he, also, as reported, has left the
place where he was residing , as per the address given in the reference, I am of the view that in
these circumstances, it will be very difficult for this Court to get effected service upon the parties.
Further, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose is likely to be served by sending the notices, on
the addresses, as have been given in the reference.
Faced with such a situation, it would not be possible for this Court to answer the reference
which has been made by the appropriate government. Accordingly, the same stands disposed of as
un-answered for the reasons, as mentioned above. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the
appropriate government for publication in the office gazette, File, after completion, be consigned to
records.
Announced:
18.12.2013
Sd/-
Presiding Judge
Labour Court, Shimla.
__________
Ref. 48 of 2013
Sh. Santosh Sharma V/s M/s Sancheez Laboratories P. Ltd. Baddi
18.12.2013:—
Present:—None for the Parties.
Notice were issued to the petitioner (Santosh Sharma) and employer/Managing Director,
M/s Sancheez Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd. Village Kunjhal Teh. Baddi, District Solan, HP As per the
6882
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
reports, which have been made on the registered letters, the company (M/s Sancheez Laboratories
(Pvt.) Ltd. Village Kunjhal Teh. Baddi, District Solan, HP), Stands closed. On the registered letter
which had been sent to the petitioner, it has been reported that he has left the place of his address.
I have considered the aforesaid reports, which have been made on the registered letters,
accompanied with Ads, through which notices had been sent to the parties. Since, the Factory in
which the petitioner was employed/working stands closed and he, also, as reported, has left the
place where he was residing , as per the address given in the reference, I am of the view that in
these circumstances, it will be very difficult for this Court to get effected service upon the parties.
Further, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose is likely to be served by sending the notices, on
the addresses, as have been given in the reference.
Faced with such a situation, it would not be possible for this Court to answer the reference
which has been made by the appropriate government. Accordingly, the same stands disposed of as
un-answered for the reasons, as mentioned above. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the
appropriate government for publication in the office gazette, File, after completion, be consigned to
records.
Announced:
18.12.2013
Sd/-
Presiding Judge
Labour Court, Shimla.
____________
Ref. 49 of 2013
Ms. Susma Sharma V/s M/s Sancheez Laboratories P. Ltd. Baddi
18.12.2013:—
Present:—None for the Parties.
Notice were issued to the petitioner (Susma Sharma) and employer/Managing Director, M/s
Sancheez Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd. Village Kunjhal Teh. Baddi, District Solan, HP As per the
reports, which have been made on the registered letters, the company (M/s Sancheez Laboratories
(Pvt.) Ltd. Village Kunjhal Teh. Baddi, District Solan, HP), Stands closed. On the registered letter
which had been sent to the petitioner, it has been reported that he has left the place of his address.
I have considered the aforesaid reports, which have been made on the registered letters,
accompanied with Ads, through which notices had been sent to the parties. Since, the Factory in
which the petitioner was employed/working stands closed and he, also, as reported, has left the
place where he was residing, as per the address given in the reference, I am of the view that in these
circumstances, it will be very difficult for this Court to get effected service upon the parties.
Further, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose is likely to be served by sending the notices, on
the addresses, as have been given in the reference.
Faced with such a situation, it would not be possible for this Court to answer the reference
which has been made by the appropriate government. Accordingly, the same stands disposed of as
un-answered for the reasons, as mentioned above. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the
appropriate government for publication in the office gazette, File, after completion, be consigned to
records.
6883
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
Announced:
18.12.2013
Sd/-
Presiding Judge
Labour Court, Shimla.
__________
Ref. 50 of 2013
Sh. Anil Kumar V/s M/s Sancheez Laboratories P. Ltd. Baddi
18.12.2013:—
Present:—None for the Parties.
Notice were issued to the petitioner (Anil Kumar) and employer/Managing Director, M/s
Sancheez Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd. Village Kunjhal Teh. Baddi, District Solan, HP As per the
reports, which have been made on the registered letters, the company (M/s Sancheez Laboratories
(Pvt.) Ltd. Village Kunjhal Teh. Baddi, District Solan, HP), Stands closed. On the registered letter
which had been sent to the petitioner, it has been reported that he has left the place of his address.
I have considered the aforesaid reports, which have been made on the registered letters,
accompanied with Ads, through which notices had been sent to the parties. Since, the Factory in
which the petitioner was employed/working stands closed and he, also, as reported, has left the
place where he was residing, as per the address given in the reference, I am of the view that in these
circumstances, it will be very difficult for this Court to get effected service upon the parties.
Further, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose is likely to be served by sending the notices, on
the addresses, as have been given in the reference.
Faced with such a situation, it would not be possible for this Court to answer the reference
which has been made by the appropriate government. Accordingly, the same stands disposed of as
un-answered for the reasons, as mentioned above. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the
appropriate government for publication in the office gazette, File, after completion, be consigned to
records.
Announced:
18.12.2013
Sd/-
Presiding Judge
Labour Court, Shimla.
__________
Ref. 51 of 2013
Sh. Jitender Kumar V/s M/s Sancheez Laboratories P. Ltd. Baddi
18.12.2013:—
Present:—None for the Parties.
Notice were issued to the petitioner (Jitender Kumar) and employer/Managing Director, M/s
Sancheez Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd. Village Kunjhal Teh. Baddi, District Solan, HP As per the
6884
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
reports, which have been made on the registered letters, the company (M/s Sancheez Laboratories
(Pvt.) Ltd. Village Kunjhal Teh. Baddi, District Solan, HP), Stands closed. On the registered letter
which had been sent to the petitioner, it has been reported that he has left the place of his address.
I have considered the aforesaid reports, which have been made on the registered letters,
accompanied with Ads, through which notices had been sent to the parties. Since, the Factory in
which the petitioner was employed/working stands closed and he, also, as reported, has left the
place where he was residing, as per the address given in the reference, I am of the view that in these
circumstances, it will be very difficult for this Court to get effected service upon the parties.
Further, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose is likely to be served by sending the notices, on
the addresses, as have been given in the reference.
Faced with such a situation, it would not be possible for this Court to answer the reference
which has been made by the appropriate government. Accordingly, the same stands disposed of as
un-answered for the reasons, as mentioned above. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the
appropriate government for publication in the office gazette, File, after completion, be consigned to
records.
Announced:
18.12.2013
Sd/-
Presiding Judge
Labour Court, Shimla.
____________
Ref. 52 of 2013
Sh. Suresh Kumar V/s M/s Sancheez Laboratories P. Ltd. Baddi
18.12.2013:—
Present:—None for the Parties.
Notice were issued to the petitioner (Suresh Kumar) and employer/Managing Director, M/s
Sancheez Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd. Village Kunjhal Teh. Baddi, District Solan, HP As per the
reports, which have been made on the registered letters, the company (M/s Sancheez Laboratories
(Pvt.) Ltd. Village Kunjhal Teh. Baddi, District Solan, HP), Stands closed. On the registered letter
which had been sent to the petitioner, it has been reported that he has left the place of his address.
I have considered the aforesaid reports, which have been made on the registered letters,
accompanied with Ads, through which notices had been sent to the parties. Since, the Factory in
which the petitioner was employed/working stands closed and he, also, as reported, has left the
place where he was residing, as per the address given in the reference, I am of the view that in these
circumstances, it will be very difficult for this Court to get effected service upon the parties.
Further, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose is likely to be served by sending the notices, on
the addresses, as have been given in the reference.
Faced with such a situation, it would not be possible for this Court to answer the reference
which has been made by the appropriate government. Accordingly, the same stands disposed of as
un-answered for the reasons, as mentioned above. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the
appropriate government for publication in the office gazette, File, after completion, be consigned to
records.
6885
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
Announced:
18.12.2013
Sd/-
Presiding Judge
Labour Court, Shimla.
___________
Ref. 53 of 2013
Sh. Jeet Ram V/s M/s Sancheez Laboratories P. Ltd. Baddi
18.12.2013:—
Present:—None for the Parties.
Notice were issued to the petitioner (Jeet Ram) and employer/Managing Director, M/s
Sancheez Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd. Village Kunjhal Teh. Baddi, District Solan, HP As per the
reports, which have been made on the registered letters, the company (M/s Sancheez Laboratories
(Pvt.) Ltd. Village Kunjhal Teh. Baddi, District Solan, HP), Stands closed. On the registered letter
which had been sent to the petitioner, it has been reported that he has left the place of his address.
I have considered the aforesaid reports, which have been made on the registered letters,
accompanied with Ads, through which notices had been sent to the parties. Since, the Factory in
which the petitioner was employed/working stands closed and he, also, as reported, has left the
place where he was residing, as per the address given in the reference, I am of the view that in these
circumstances, it will be very difficult for this Court to get effected service upon the parties.
Further, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose is likely to be served by sending the notices, on
the addresses, as have been given in the reference.
Faced with such a situation, it would not be possible for this Court to answer the reference
which has been made by the appropriate government. Accordingly, the same stands disposed of as
un-answered for the reasons, as mentioned above. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the
appropriate government for publication in the office gazette, File, after completion, be consigned to
records.
Announced:
18.12.2013
Sd/-
Presiding Judge
Labour Court, Shimla.
____________
Ref. 63/2010
Sh. Rajesh Chauhan V/s M/s Tegakasha Metallic Ltd. Shoghi
2.1.2014:—
Present:—Petitioner with Ms. Bindiya Negi, Advocate Vice Csl Kanwer Virender Singh, Advocate
for Petitioner.
Shri Rajesh Kosh, Advocate for the respondent.
6886
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
It has been stated before this Court by Shri Rajesh Kosh, Advocate for the respondent that
already a settlement has taken place with the petitioner, out of Court. He further stated that the
amount which has been settled between the parties shall be paid to the petitioner within ten day.
The petitioner has also stated before this Court that already he has entered into a settlement
with the respondent and that the amount, which is proposed to be paid him, as per settlement, is
acceptable to him. He further stated that in terms of the settlement, which has already been effected
between the parties, the reference be decided.
On having heard the versions, as made before this Court by Shri Rajesh Kosh, Advocate
and the petitioner, I order that their statements be recorded which are accordingly recorded.
Considering the statement of the parties, I am satisfied that a lawful settlement, out of
Court, has taken place between the parties.
Consequently, the reference, as made to this Court, which reads as under :
“Whether the termination of services of Shri Rajesh Chauhan S/o Shri Hira Lal
workman by the Managing Director, M/s Tegaksha Metallics Pvt. Ltd, Industrial Area
Shoghi, District Shimla, HP w.e.f. 25.11.2007, without complying the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 is proper and justified? If not, to what relief of service benefits,
beck wages, seniority and amount of compensation the above aggrieved workman is
entitled to ?”
Stands answered in terms of the statement of Shri Rajesh Kosh, Advocate which has also
been admitted to be correct and acceptable by the petitioner. Let a copy of this award/order be sent
to the appropriate government for publication in the official gazette. File, after completion, be
consigned to records.
Announced:
2.1.2014
Presiding Judge
Labour Court, Shimla.
____________
Ref. 63/2010
Sh. Rajesh Chauhan V/s M/s Tegakasha Metallic Ltd Shoghi
2.1.2014:—
Present:—Petitioner with Ms. Bindiya Negi, Advocate Vice Csl Kanwer Virender Singh, Advocate
for Petitioner.
Shri Rajesh Kosh, Advocate for the respondent.
It has been stated before this Court by Shri Rajesh Kosh, Advocate for the respondent that
already a settlement has taken place with the petitioner, out of Court. He further stated that the
amount which has been settled between the parties shall be paid to the petitioner within ten day.
6887
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
The petitioner has also stated before this Court that already he has entered into a settlement with
the respondent and that the amount, which is proposed to be paid him, as per settlement, is
acceptable to him. He further stated that in terms of the settlement, which has already been effected
between the parties, the reference be decided.
On having heard the versions, as made before this Court by Shri Rajesh Kosh, Advocate
and the petitioner, I order that their statements be recorded which are accordingly recorded.
Considering the statement of the parties, I am satisfied that a lawful settlement, out of
Court, has taken place between the parties.
Consequently, the reference, as made to this Court, which reads as under :
“Whether the termination of services of Shri Rajesh Chauhan S/o Shri Hira Lal
workman by the Managing Director, M/s Tegaksha Metallics Pvt. Ltd., Industrial
Area Shoghi, District Shimla, HP w.e.f. 25.11.2007, without complying the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 is proper and justified? If not, to what relief of service benefits,
beck wages, seniority and amount of compensation the above aggrieved workman is
entitled to ?”
Stands answered in terms of the statement of Shri Rajesh Kosh, Advocate which has also
been admitted to be correct and acceptable by the petitioner. Let a copy of this award/order be sent
to the appropriate government for publication in the official gazette. File, after completion, be
consigned to records.
Announced:
2.1.2014
Presiding Judge
Labour Court, Shimla.
___________
Ref. 64 of 2010
Pradeep Sharma V/s M/s Tegakasha Metallic Ltd. Shoghi
2.1.2014:—
Present:—Petitioner with Ms. Bindiya Negi, Advocate Vice Csl Kanwer Virender Singh, Advocate
for Petitioner.
Shri Rajesh Kosh, Advocate for the respondent.
It has been stated before this Court by Shri Rajesh Kosh, Advocate for the respondent that
already a settlement has taken place with the petitioner, out of Court. He further stated that the
amount which has been settled between the parties shall be paid to the petitioner within ten day.
The petitioner has also stated before this Court that already he has entered into a settlement with
the respondent and that the amount, which is proposed to be paid him, as per settlement, is
acceptable to him. He further stated that in terms of the settlement, which has already been effected
between the parties, the reference be decided.
6888
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
On having heard the versions, as made before this Court by Shri Rajesh Kosh, Advocate
and the petitioner, I order that their statements be recorded which are accordingly recorded.
Considering the statement of the parties, I am satisfied that a lawful settlement, out of
Court, has taken place between the parties.
Consequently, the reference, as made to this Court, which reads as under :
“Whether the termination of services of Shri Rajesh Chauhan S/o Shri Hira Lal
workman by the Managing Director, M/s Tegaksha Metallics Pvt. Ltd., Industrial
Area Shoghi, District Shimla, HP w.e.f. 25.11.2007, without complying the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 is proper and justified? If not, to what relief of service benefits,
beck wages, seniority and amount of compensation the above aggrieved workman is
entitled to ?”
Stands answered in terms of the statement of Shri Rajesh Kosh, Advocate which has also
been admitted to be correct and acceptable by the petitioner. Let a copy of this award/order be sent
to the appropriate government for publication in the official gazette. File, after completion, be
consigned to records.
Announced:
2.1.2014
Presiding Judge
Labour Court, Shimla.
___________
Ref. 65 of 2010
Rajeev Sharma V/s M/s Tegakasha Metallic Ltd. Shoghi
2.1.2014:—
Present:—Petitioner with Ms. Bindiya Negi, Advocate Vice Csl Kanwer Virender Singh, Advocate
for Petitioner.
Shri Rajesh Kosh, Advocate for the respondent.
It has been stated before this Court by Shri Rajesh Kosh, Advocate for the respondent that
already a settlement has taken place with the petitioner , out of Court. He further stated that the
amount which has been settled between the parties shall be paid to the petitioner within ten day.
The petitioner has also stated before this Court that already he has entered into a settlement
with the respondent and that the amount, which is proposed to be paid him, as per settlement, is
acceptable to him. He further stated that in terms of the settlement, which has already been effected
between the parties, the reference be decided.
On having heard the versions , as made before this Court by Shri Rajesh Kosh, Advocate
and the petitioner, I order that their statements be recorded which are accordingly recorded.
Considering the statement of the parties, I am satisfied that a lawful settlement, out of
Court, has taken place between the parties.
6889
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
Consequently, the reference, as made to this Court, which reads as under :
“Whether the termination of services of Shri Rajesh Chauhan S/o Shri Hira Lal
workman by the Managing Director, M/s Tegaksha Metallics Pvt. Ltd., Industrial
Area Shoghi, District Shimla, HP w.e.f. 25.11.2007, without complying the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 is proper and justified? If not, to what relief of service benefits,
beck wages, seniority and amount of compensation the above aggrieved workman is
entitled to ?”
Stands answered in terms of the statement of Shri Rajesh Kosh, Advocate which has also
been admitted to be correct and acceptable by the petitioner. Let a copy of this award/order be sent
to the appropriate government for publication in the official gazette. File, after completion, be
consigned to records.
Announced:
2.1.2014
Presiding Judge
Labour Court, Shimla.
___________
IN THE COURT OF A.S. JASWAL, PRESIDING JUDGE, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA, (H.P).
Ref. No. 103 of 2007.
Instituted on. 24.9.2007.
Issue no. 4 decided on 14.1.2014.
Mansa Ram S/o Shri Hazaru Ram R/o Village Sanahali, P.O. Kandhar, Tehsil Arki, District
Solan, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Vs.
The Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, HPSEB Arki, District Solan, H.P.
..Respondent.
Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For petitioner
: Shri Virender Thakur, Advocate.
For respondent
: Shri Ramakant Sharma, Advocate.
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 4
Before, I proceed to give my findings on issue no. 4, back history of the case, in brief, needs
to be narrated, which is as follows:
2.
A reference, as under, was made to this Court by the appropriate government.
“Whether the termination of services of Shri Mansa Ram S/o Shri Hazaru Ram
workman by the Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, HPSEB Arki, District
Solan, H.P w.e.f. 21.8.1994 without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes
6890
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
Act, 1947 is proper and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits and amount of
compensation the above aggrieved workman is entitled to? ”
3.
Consequent upon the reference, so made, a statement of claim was filed by the
petitioner, wherein, he alleged that he was engaged as beldar by the respondent and worked at Sub
Division, Darlaghat under Electricity Division, Arki District Solan w.e.f. 26.3.1982. On 20.2.1995,
his services were orally terminated, without notice and compensation. He had also completed 240
days in one calendar year. After his termination, workers junior to him, were also engaged by the
respondent.
4.
The respondent contested the claim on having raised preliminary objections
including maintainability and delay. On merits, it was denied that on 20.2.1995, the services of the
petitioner had been orally terminated. In fact, he did not work continuously, during one calendar
year, for 240 days. On his own, he had left the job and did not join the same. In this way, there has
been no violation of the provisions of the Act.
5.
Pleadings of the parties, gave rise to the following issues which were struck of on
8.7.2009.
1.
Whether the termination of the services of Shri Mansa Ram petitioner by the Senior
Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, HPSEB Arki, District Solan w.e.f.
21.8.1994 without complying the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is
improper and unjustified as alleged?
..OPP.
2.
If issue no.1 is proved, to what relief of service benefits and amount of
compensation the petitioner is entitled to?
..OPP.
3.
Whether the reference is not maintainable as alleged?
..OPR.
4.
Whether the reference is hit by delay and latches?
..OPR.
5.
Relief.
6.
This Court on having heard the Learned Counsel for both the parties, as per award
dated 6.10.2012, decided issue no.1 in “yes”. Issue no. 2, was decided, holding the petitioner to be
entitled to reinstatement in service with seniority and continuity but without back wages. Issues no.
3 & 4, were decided in negative.
7.
The award, passed by this Court, was challenged in the Hon’ble High Court by way
of Civil Writ Petition no. 5344 of 2013-E, by the respondent, herein. As per order dated 5.11.2013,
the Hon’ble High Court, set aside the findings, recorded by this Court on issue no. 4 and remanded
the matter to this Court for answering the same, on its own merits, in accordance with law. It was
also observed that this Court was to answer only issue of delay and laches and no other issue in the
remanded proceedings. For the sake of convenience, para nos. 4, 5 & 6, of the order of Hon’ble
High Court, are reproduced herein below:
“4. This reasoning, in our opinion, is untenable and to say the least perverse. Unless
the issue of delay and laches is to be answered in the first place in favour of employee,
the question of answering other issues on merits would not assume any significance.
Learned Judge, however, has proceeded to jump to the conclusion that irrespective of
the time period and inaction of the respondents, the question of delay and laches will
have to be decided in favour of respondent. That approach is inappropriate. Recently,
6891
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
we had occasion to consider similar grievance of disposing of issue of delay and laches
in casual manner by the Labour Court in case of Executive Engineer Vs. Chhaje Ram
being CWP No. 3087 of 2013 and companion cases decided on 19.10.2013. Even in the
present case, we are inclined to set aside the finding recorded by the Labour Court on
issue No. 4 concerning delay and laches in making reference and instead remit matter
to the Labour Court for answering the same on its own merits in accordance with law.
In other words, Labour Court shall answer only issue of delay and laches and no other
issue in the remanded proceedings.
5. For the time being, we are not examining the correctness of decision on other issues
answered by the Labour Court in the impugned judgment. In the event, issue of delay
and laches in making reference is answered against the petitioner. It will be open to
the petitioner to challenge the said findings in appropriate proceedings and in which
proceedings, those issues can be considered on its own merits in accordance with law.
We leave those questions open to be considered in the appropriate proceedings.
6. The parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 18.11.2013 on which date,
Labour Court shall assign suitable date for hearing of the case on the issue of delay
and laches, i.e. issue No. 4 while ensuring that the same is finally answered one way or
the other and not later than 31.1.2014.”
8.
Pursuance to the order dated 5.11.2013, of the Hon’ble High Court, the parties,
through their counsel, appeared before this Court. Now, issue no. 4, which reads as under, is to be
decided by this Court, as per the order of the Hon’ble High Court.
4.
Whether the reference is hit by delay and latches?
..OPR.
9.
For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, my findings on issue no. 4, are as under:
Issue no. 4
No.
Reasons for finding
11.
Ld. Counsel for the respondent has urged with vehemence that there has been
inordinate delay in making the reference to this Court, which, in fact, was made on 15th September,
2007. As per the contention of the petitioner, his services had been terminated w.e.f. 21.8.1994, in
an illegal and unjustified manner, in violation of the provisions of the Act. This goes to show that
about 12 years, the reference was made to this Court by the appropriate government. The Ld.
Counsel urged that for this reason, the reference, which has been made to this Court, suffers from
delay and laches and deserves to be dismissed/rejected. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the
petitioner submitted that on the ground of delay and laches, in making the reference to this Court,
the same cannot be rejected/dismissed. He further urged that under section 11 of the Act, this Court
is required to answer the reference, which has been made to it, by the appropriate government,
under section 10. Thus, on the plea that the reference, which has been made to this Court, suffers
from delay and laches, it cannot be rejected/dismissed.
11. When regard is given to the reply, filed by the respondent, it is revealed that a
preliminary objection has been taken that the reference, which has been made to this Court, is hit
by delay and laches because the petitioner had raised the industrial dispute after a lapse of 9 years.
As far as, the onus to prove issue no.4 is concerned, it is upon the respondent. When regard is given
to the evidence of Shri Inder Singh (RW-1), it is revealed that he has not stated a single word that
after about 9 years, the petitioner had raised the industrial dispute. In fact, his evidence is silent as
6892
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
far as alleged delay and laches, in making reference, is concerned. Here, I may like to point out that
the respondent upon whom the onus to prove this issue lies did not bring on record the demand
notice which had been raised by the petitioner in respect of his alleged illegal termination w.e.f.
21.8.1994. Now, I would like to refer to section 10 of the Act, which reads as under:
“Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals.—(1) [Where the appropriate
Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may
at any time], by order in writing,—
(a)
refer the dispute to a Board for promoting a settlement thereof; or
(b)
refer any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the
dispute to a Court for inquiry” or……….
12.
The perusal of the aforesaid section goes to show that the Government’s power to
refer an industrial dispute, for adjudication, has thus one limitation of time and that is, it can be
done only so long as the dispute exists. In other words, the period envisaged by the enduring
expression “at any time” terminates with the eclipse of the industrial dispute. It therefore, means
that if the dispute existed on the day when the reference was made by the Government, it is idle to
ascertain the number of years which elapsed since the commencement of the dispute to determine
whether the delay would have extinguished the power of the Government to make the reference.
Thus, the real test is the existence of industrial dispute on the day of reference for
adjudication. It is further to be noted that the only authority which can form such an opinion is the
Government. If it (Government) decides to make the reference, there is a presumption that in its
opinion there exists such dispute. Hon’ble Apex Court in Western India match Co. Ltd. Vs.
Workers Union, (1970) 1 SCC 225, made the following observations, in para no 8:
“Therefore, the expression "at any time" though seemingly without any limits, is
governed by the context in which it appears. Ordinarily, the question of making a
reference would arise after conciliation proceedings have been gone through and the
conciliation officer has made a failure report. But the Government need not wait until
such a procedure has been completed. In an urgent case, it can "at any time", i.e., even
when such proceedings have not begun or are still pending, decide to refer the dispute
for adjudication. The expression "at any time" thus takes in such cases as where the
Government decides to make a reference without waiting for conciliation proceedings
to begin or to be completed. As already stated, the expression "at any time" in the
context in which it is used postulates that a reference can only be made if an industrial
dispute exists or is apprehended. No reference is contemplated by the section when the
dispute is not an industrial dispute, or even if it is so, it no longer exists or is not
apprehended, for, instance, where it is already adjudicated or in respect of which there
is an agreement or a settlement between the parties or where the industry in question
is no longer in existence.”
13.
Having regard to the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court (Supra), the present
reference, which has been made to this Court by the appropriate government, cannot be said to be
bad on account of delay and laches. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurmail
Singh Vs. Principal Government College of Education and others, (2000) 9, SCC 496 that
“Mere delay in challenging the termination would not be a bar to the adjudication of the matter but
could only deprive the appellant of his back wages for the period of delay in raising the termination
issue.”
14.
Consequently, On the basis of law (Supra), and my discussion, foregoing, I without
hesitation hold that the respondent has failed to prove that this reference, which has been made to
6893
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
this Court, by the appropriate government, is hit by delay and laches. Accordingly, my answer to
this issue is in “No”.
15.
Pursuance to the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court, the findings on issue no.
4, aforesaid, stand returned. Consequently, this order shall form part and parcel of the award,
passed by this Court in reference no. 103/2007, decided on 6.10.2012. Let a copy of findings on
issue no.4, returned by this Court, be sent to the appropriate government for publication in official
gazette. File, after completion, be consigned to records.
Announced in the open court today on this 14th day of Jan., 2014.
Presiding Judge,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Shimla.
________
IN THE COURT OF A.S. JASWAL, PRESIDING JUDGE, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA, (H.P).
Ref No.
103 of 2007.
Instituted on.
24.9.2007.
Issue no.4 decided on 14.1.2014.
Mansa Ram S/o Shri Hazaru Ram R/o Village Sanahali, P.O. Kandhar, Tehsil Arki, District
Solan, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Vs.
The Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, HPSEB Arki, District Solan, H.P.
..Respondent.
Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For petitioner
: Shri Virender Thakur, Advocate.
For respondent
: Shri Ramakant Sharma, Advocate.
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 4
Before, I proceed to give my findings on issue no. 4, back history of the case, in brief, needs
to be narrated, which is as follows:
2.
A reference, as under, was made to this Court by the appropriate government.
“Whether the termination of services of Shri Mansa Ram S/o Shri Hazaru Ram
workman by the Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, HPSEB Arki, District Solan,
H.P. w.e.f. 21.8.1994 without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is
proper and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits and amount of compensation the
above aggrieved workman is entitled to? ”
6894
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
3.
Consequent upon the reference, so made, a statement of claim was filed by the
petitioner, wherein, he alleged that he was engaged as beldar by the respondent and worked at Sub
Division, Darlaghat under Electricity Division, Arki District Solan w.e.f. 26.3.1982. On 20.2.1995,
his services were orally terminated, without notice and compensation. He had also completed 240
days in one calendar year. After his termination, workers junior to him, were also engaged by the
respondent.
4.
The respondent contested the claim on having raised preliminary objections
including maintainability and delay. On merits, it was denied that on 20.2.1995, the services of the
petitioner had been orally terminated. In fact, he did not work continuously, during one calendar
year, for 240 days. On his own, he had left the job and did not join the same. In this way, there has
been no violation of the provisions of the Act.
5.
Pleadings of the parties, gave rise to the following issues which were struck of on
8.7.2009.
6.
Whether the termination of the services of Shri Mansa Ram petitioner by the Senior
Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, HPSEB Arki, District Solan w.e.f.
21.8.1994 without complying the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is
improper and unjustified as alleged?
..OPP.
7.
If issue no. 1 is proved, to what relief of service benefits and amount of
compensation the petitioner is entitled to?
..OPP.
8.
Whether the reference is not maintainable as alleged?
..OPR.
9.
Whether the reference is hit by delay and latches?
..OPR.
10.
Relief.
6.
This Court on having heard the Learned Counsel for both the parties, as per award
dated 6.10.2012, decided issue no. 1 in “yes”. Issue no. 2, was decided, holding the petitioner to be
entitled to reinstatement in service with seniority and continuity but without back wages. Issues no.
3 & 4, were decided in negative.
7.
The award, passed by this Court, was challenged in the Hon’ble High Court by way
of Civil Writ Petition no. 5344 of 2013-E, by the respondent, herein. As per order dated 5.11.2013,
the Hon’ble High Court, set aside the findings, recorded by this Court on issue no. 4 and remanded
the matter to this Court for answering the same, on its own merits, in accordance with law. It was
also observed that this Court was to answer only issue of delay and laches and no other issue in the
remanded proceedings. For the sake of convenience, para nos. 4, 5 & 6, of the order of Hon’ble
High Court, are reproduced herein below:
“4. This reasoning, in our opinion, is untenable and to say the least perverse. Unless
the issue of delay and laches is to be answered in the first place in favour of employee,
the question of answering other issues on merits would not assume any significance.
Learned Judge, however, has proceeded to jump to the conclusion that irrespective of
the time period and inaction of the respondents, the question of delay and laches will
have to be decided in favour of respondent. That approach is inappropriate. Recently,
we had occasion to consider similar grievance of disposing of issue of delay and laches
in casual manner by the Labour Court in case of Executive Engineer Vs. Chhaje Ram
being CWP No. 3087 of 2013 and companion cases decided on 19.10.2013. Even in the
6895
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
present case, we are inclined to set aside the finding recorded by the Labour Court on
issue No. 4 concerning delay and laches in making reference and instead remit matter
to the Labour Court for answering the same on its own merits in accordance with law.
In other words, Labour Court shall answer only issue of delay and laches and no other
issue in the remanded proceedings.
5. For the time being, we are not examining the correctness of decision on other issues
answered by the Labour Court in the impugned judgment. In the event, issue of delay
and laches in making reference is answered against the petitioner. It will be open to
the petitioner to challenge the said findings in appropriate proceedings and in which
proceedings, those issues can be considered on its own merits in accordance with law.
We leave those questions open to be considered in the appropriate proceedings.
6. The parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 18.11.2013 on which date,
Labour Court shall assign suitable date for hearing of the case on the issue of delay
and laches, i.e. issue No. 4 while ensuring that the same is finally answered one way or
the other and not later than 31.1.2014.”
8.
Pursuance to the order dated 5.11.2013, of the Hon’ble High Court, the parties,
through their counsel, appeared before this Court. Now, issue no. 4, which reads as under, is to be
decided by this Court, as per the order of the Hon’ble High Court.
5.
Whether the reference is hit by delay and latches?
..OPR.
9.
For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, my findings on issue no. 4, are as under:
Issue no. 4
No.
Reasons for finding.
11.
Ld. Counsel for the respondent has urged with vehemence that there has been
inordinate delay in making the reference to this Court, which, in fact, was made on 15th September,
2007. As per the contention of the petitioner, his services had been terminated w.e.f. 21.8.1994, in
an illegal and unjustified manner, in violation of the provisions of the Act. This goes to show that
about 12 years, the reference was made to this Court by the appropriate government. The Ld.
Counsel urged that for this reason, the reference, which has been made to this Court, suffers from
delay and laches and deserves to be dismissed/rejected. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the
petitioner submitted that on the ground of delay and laches, in making the reference to this Court,
the same cannot be rejected/dismissed. He further urged that under section 11 of the Act, this Court
is required to answer the reference, which has been made to it, by the appropriate government,
under section 10. Thus, on the plea that the reference, which has been made to this Court, suffers
from delay and laches, it cannot be rejected/dismissed.
11.
When regard is given to the reply, filed by the respondent, it is revealed that a
preliminary objection has been taken that the reference, which has been made to this Court, is hit
by delay and laches because the petitioner had raised the industrial dispute after a lapse of 9 years.
As far as, the onus to prove issue no. 4 is concerned, it is upon the respondent. When regard is
given to the evidence of Shri Inder Singh (RW-1), it is revealed that he has not stated a single word
that after about 9 years, the petitioner had raised the industrial dispute. In fact, his evidence is silent
as far as alleged delay and laches, in making reference, is concerned. Here, I may like to point out
that the respondent upon whom the onus to prove this issue lies did not bring on record the demand
6896
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
notice which had been raised by the petitioner in respect of his alleged illegal termination w.e.f.
21.8.1994. Now, I would like to refer to section 10 of the Act, which reads as under:
“Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals.—(1) [Where the appropriate
Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may
at any time], by order in writing,—
(a)
refer the dispute to a Board for promoting a settlement thereof; or
(b)
refer any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute to a
Court for inquiry” or……….
12.
The perusal of the aforesaid section goes to show that the Government’s power to
refer an industrial dispute, for adjudication, has thus one limitation of time and that is, it can be
done only so long as the dispute exists. In other words, the period envisaged by the enduring
expression “at any time” terminates with the eclipse of the industrial dispute. It therefore, means
that if the dispute existed on the day when the reference was made by the Government, it is idle to
ascertain the number of years which elapsed since the commencement of the dispute to determine
whether the delay would have extinguished the power of the Government to make the reference.
Thus, the real test is the existence of industrial dispute on the day of reference for
adjudication. It is further to be noted that the only authority which can form such an opinion is the
Government. If it (Government) decides to make the reference, there is a presumption that in its
opinion there exists such dispute. Hon’ble Apex Court in Western India match Co. Ltd. Vs.
Workers Union, (1970) 1 SCC 225, made the following observations, in para no 8:
“Therefore, the expression "at any time" though seemingly without any limits, is
governed by the context in which it appears. Ordinarily, the question of making a
reference would arise after conciliation proceedings have been gone through and the
conciliation officer has made a failure report. But the Government need not wait until
such a procedure has been completed. In an urgent case, it can "at any time", i.e., even
when such proceedings have not begun or are still pending, decide to refer the dispute
for adjudication. The expression "at any time" thus takes in such cases as where the
Government decides to make a reference without waiting for conciliation proceedings
to begin or to be completed. As already stated, the expression "at any time" in the
context in which it is used postulates that a reference can only be made if an industrial
dispute exists or is apprehended. No reference is contemplated by the section when the
dispute is not an industrial dispute, or even if it is so, it no longer exists or is not
apprehended, for, instance, where it is already adjudicated or in respect of which there
is an agreement or a settlement between the parties or where the industry in question
is no longer in existence.”
13.
Having regard to the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court (Supra), the present
reference, which has been made to this Court by the appropriate government, cannot be said to be
bad on account of delay and laches. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurmail
Singh Vs. Principal Government College of Education and others, (2000) 9, SCC 496 that
“Mere delay in challenging the termination would not be a bar to the adjudication of the matter but
could only deprive the appellant of his back wages for the period of delay in raising the termination
issue.”
14.
Consequently, On the basis of law (Supra), and my discussion, foregoing, I without
hesitation hold that the respondent has failed to prove that this reference, which has been made to
6897
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
this Court, by the appropriate government, is hit by delay and laches. Accordingly, my answer to
this issue is in “No”.
15.
Pursuance to the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court, the findings on issue no.
4, aforesaid, stand returned. Consequently, this order shall form part and parcel of the award,
passed by this Court in reference no. 103/2007, decided on 6.10.2012. Let a copy of findings on
issue no. 4, returned by this Court, be sent to the appropriate government for publication in official
gazette. File, after completion, be consigned to records.
Announced in the open court today on this 14th day of Jan., 2014.
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. 54 of 2013.
Instituted on 5.8.2013.
Decided on 9.1.2014.
Ram Singh S/o Shri Chanan Singh C/o Shri Om Dutt Sharma, Sheel Cottage, VPO Taksal,
Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, HP.
..Petitioner.
VS.
The Employer/Factory Manager, M/s Deekay Enterprises, Plot no. 21, Sector-2, Parwanoo,
District Solan, HP.
..Respondent.
Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For petitioner
: None.
For respondent
: None.
AWARD/ORDER
The reference for adjudication, is as under:—
‘‘Whether termination of the services of Shri Ram Singh S/o Shri Chanan Singh C/o
Shri Om Dutt Sharma, Sheel Cottage, VPO Taksal, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan HP by the
Employer/Factory Manager, M/s Deekay Enterprises, Plot no. 21, Sector-2, Parwanoo,
District Solan, HP w.e.f. 12/12/2011, 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 worker is entitled to from the above employer?”
2.
Notices were issued to the petitioner as well as respondent for 9/1/2014, but despite
the service of the same, they failed to appear before this Court. I may mention that on 28/2/2013,
6898
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
notices had been ordered to be issued to the parties returnable for 3/12/2013, through registered
post with AD. For the said date i.e. 3/12/2013, notice had been duly served upon the petitioner,
through registered post, as per report made on the AD. Despite that, another notice, on 3/12/2013,
had been ordered to be issued to the parties, including petitioner, returnable for 9/1/2014, but even
today, neither the petitioner, on having been served, as per law, has appeared before this Court nor
the respondent.
3.
In these circumstances, when the parties are not inclined to appear before this Court,
despite having been served, this Court has been left with no other alternative but to decide the
reference on the basis of material, whichever, is available before it.
4.
From the reference, it is highlighted that the petitioner (Ram Singh) had alleged his
termination of services w.e.f. 12/12/2011, to be illegal and unjustified for being against the
provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since, he has preferred, not to appear before this Court,
despite having been served, in accordance with law, there is no material, whatsoever, in order to
substantiate his contention that his services have been terminated w.e.f. 12/12/2011, without
complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the respondent. Thus, this
reference is required to be decided against him. Accordingly, I answer this reference against the
petitioner. Let a copy of this award/order be sent to the appropriate government for publication in
the official gazette. File, after completion be consigned to records.
Announced:
9/1/2014
Presiding Judge,
Labour Court, Shimla.
___________
IN THE COURT OF A.S JASWAL, PRESIDING JUDGE, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA, (H.P).
Ref. No. 21 of 2010
Instituted 12.4.2010
Decided 13.1.2014
Rishi Kumar S/o Banwari Lal. VPO Naujheel, Mahura, Uttar Pradesh. ..Petitioner.
Vs.
The Factory Manager M/s Kilitch Drugs (India) Ltd. Nalagarh, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, Distt.
Sirmour, H.P.
..Respondent.
Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For petitioner
:
Shri R.K. Khidta, Advocate.
For respondent
:
Shri Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate.
AWARD
The reference for adjudication, is as under:—
“Whether demand of Sh. Rishi Kumar S/O Sh. Banwari Lal before the management of
M/s Kilitch Drugs(India) Ltd. Nihalgarh. Tehsil Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmour, H.P. for
the payment of bonus, earned leave, earned wages and compensation is proper and
justified? If yes, what relief the aggrieved workman is entitled to?”
6899
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
2.
The contention of the petitioner is that in the month of December, 2006, he was
engaged as Q.C. (quality Control Officer) by the respondent company and worked as such till
10.7.2008. Due to some compelling circumstances, he was forced to resign from the post and his
resignation was duly accepted by the respondent. Consequent upon the acceptance of his
resignation, he was entitled to all the benefits, such as, bonus, earned leave, earned wages and
compensation but the same were denied to him, despite repeated requests. The bonus for the year,
2009-10, which has not been paid to him comes to Rs. 9630/-, wages on earned leave, Rs. 15,000/-,
earned wages, Rs. 15,000/-, and compensation Rs. 15,000/-, total Rs. 54636/-. The respondent is
bound to pay aforesaid amount along-with interest @ 12% per annum.
3.
The petition has been contested by raising various preliminary objections including
maintainability because the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as Act). On merits, it has been asserted that
during his service carrier, the performance of the petitioner was below standard and in this regard,
he had been communicated on various occasions by his superiors. Despite so, he did not improve
his performance. Further, it is averred that the petitioner had voluntarily resigned from his services,
in contravention of the terms and conditions, as stipulated in the appointment letter, as per which he
was required to have given one month’s prior notice. Before resignation, he (petitioner) also did not
complete his assignment. This clearly shows that he had abandoned his services. Further, the
respondent had calculated the various dues which were payable to the petitioner but the same were
not acceptable to him. Other allegations denied.
4.
By filing rejoinder, the petitioner has reaffirmed his own allegations by denying
those of the respondent.
5.
Pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues which were struck of on
14.3.2012:
1.
Whether the demand raised by the petitioner before the respondent for payment of
bonus, earned leave, earned wages and compensation, is proper and justified?
..OPP.
2.
If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, to what relief the petitioner is entitled to?
..OPP.
3.
Whether the petitioner is not a workman?
..OPR.
4.
Whether the petitioner himself abandoned the job?
..OPR.
5.
Whether this petition is not maintainable?
..OPR.
6.
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.
6900
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
Issue no. 3
No.
Issue no. 4
No.
Issue no. 5
No.
Relief.
Reference answered against the petitioner and in favour of respondent, per
operative part of award.
Reasons for findings.
Issue no. 1& 2.
8.
Before I proceed further, I would like to point out that on being afforded several
opportunities, the petitioner had failed to lead his evidence. On 5.7.2013, the case was adjourned
for 6.8.2013. On that date, it had been made clear that on the fixed date i.e. 6.8.2013, if the
petitioner had failed to lead evidence, the same shall stand closed by the order of this Court. On
6.8.2013, when the case was taken up, neither the petitioner was present nor his other
witness/witnesses. An application, which had been filed by the petitioner, through Shri R.K.
Khidta, Advocate, seeking adjournment, was allowed and one more opportunity was given to the
petitioner for leading his evidence. The case was thus adjourned to 16.9.2013, for the evidence of
the petitioner. On the fixed date i.e. 16.9.2013, neither the petitioner was present nor his
witness/witnesses. Thus, his evidence, in terms of order dated 5.7.2013, was closed by this Court.
Since, the petitioner did not lead evidence, no evidence was led by the respondent.
9.
The contention of the petitioner is that consequent upon his forced resignation, he
was entitled to be paid bonus, payment of earned leave, earned wages and compensation, as per
their mention given in para no. 5, of the claim petition. The defence version is to this effect that the
petitioner had voluntarily resigned, from service, without having complied with the terms and
conditions, as stipulated in the appointment letter because he had not given one month’s prior
notice. It has further been urged that the benefits, which were admissible to the petitioner, had been
calculated but the same were not acceptable to him.
10.
When, a specific plea has been taken by the respondent that the benefits, as were due
and admissible to the petitioner, had been calculated but the same were not acceptable to him, then,
it was required of the petitioner to have led evidence, before this Court, in order to substantiate his
contention that in fact, he was entitled to the benefits as have been claimed by him and not as
calculated by the respondent. For his failure to have appeared in the witness box, as his own
witness, there is no evidence, whatsoever, before this Court which could go to prove his contention
that he is entitled to the benefits of payment of bonus etc., as claimed by him. I may observe that he
was required to lead substantive evidence in order to prove his claim regarding his entitlement for
the payment of bonus etc. It is true that Shri R.K. Khida, Advocate has submitted that since, the
respondent had admitted that some benefits are required to be paid to the petitioner, for this reason,
the failure of the petitioner to have led evidence, does not go to weaken his case, as has been put
forth before this Court. This contention of the learned counsel fails to convince me because for
want of examination of the petitioner, before this Court, it cannot be said that, in fact, what
benefits, he is entitled to claim and that which benefits were being offered to him by the
respondent. I may also like to point out that a plea has also been taken by the respondent that the
petitioner had resigned from service in contravention of the terms and conditions of the
appointment letter, as per which, he was required to have given one month’s prior notice, before
resigning. Further, as per preliminary objection no. 6, a plea has been taken that the respondent had
calculated the outstanding amount, payable as full & final settlement to the petitioner, to be Rs.
6901
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
8350/-. This goes to show that as per the respondent, the amount by way of full & final settlement,
which was payable to the petitioner, was Rs. 8350-, and not as claimed by him. If the petitioner was
to disprove the amount, as was calculated to be paid to him, as full & final settlement, it was
obligatory upon him to have led specific evidence.
11.
Thus, for my above discussion and also that the petitioner has failed to lead
evidence, in support of his claim, I have been left with no other alternative but to hold that he
(petitioner) has failed to prove this issue to which my answer is in “no”.
Issue no. 2
12.
In view of my findings on issue no.1, this issue becomes redundant and accordingly,
it is decided as such.
Issue no. 3
13.
In the reply, which has been filed by the respondent, definition of the workman, as
given in section 2(s), has been mentioned. On having perused the definition, so mentioned by the
respondent, I have no hesitation in stating that the same is not as per the amended definition, as
given in the Act. It is to be noted that as per the amended definition, a person is not a workmen, if
employed in supervisory capacity, if he draws wages exceeding Rs. 10,000/- per mensem. This
goes to show that a person, employed in a supervisory capacity, is a workman if he does not draw
wages exceeding Rs. 10,000/- per mensem. On the record, the respondent has brought salary
breakup of the petitioner, which goes to show that he gets total salary to the tune of Rs. 8,000/-,
including allowances etc. Further, I may like to point out that a supervisory capacity contemplates
direction and control. Thus, it is necessary to prove that there were some persons working under a
person who works in supervisory capacity. In other words, it can be said that to prove supervisory
capacity, it is required to be shown that some persons have been working under the supervisor,
whose work, he is required to supervise. In the instant case, the respondent has also not led
evidence, as said above. For its failure to have led evidence, it has remained unproved, on record,
that the petitioner is not a workman, as per amended definition as given in section 2 (s) of the Act.
Thus, my answer to this issue is in “no”.
Issue no. 4
14.
Although, a plea has been taken by the respondent that the petitioner had himself
abandoned the job but in support thereof, no evidence has been led. On the contrary, it is admitted
case of the petitioner that he had resigned from service. In these circumstances, when the
respondent itself admits that the petitioner had resigned, it cannot be said that he had abandoned his
job. Definitely, there is a difference between resigning and abandoning the job. Consequently, my
answer to this issue is in “no”.
Issue no. 5
15.
An objection has also been taken by the respondent that this petition is not
maintainable. The main plea of the respondent, in alleging this petition to be not maintainable, is
that the petitioner is not a workman, as per section 2 (s) of the Act. While deciding issue no. 3,
above, it has already been held by me that the respondent has failed to prove that the petitioner is
not a workman. In these circumstances, when the petitioner can be said to be a workman, in terms
of amended section 2(s) of the Act, this petition is required to be held to be maintainable, which I
accordingly hold. Thus, my answer to this issue is in “no”.
6902
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
Relief.
As a sequel to my findings on the aforesaid issues, this petition deserves to be dismissed
and accordingly, it is dismissed with the result the reference is 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 on this 13th day of Jan., 2014.
Presiding Judge,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Shimla.
__________
10/1/2014.
Present:—Shri Kapoor Chand Verma, President, Oberoi Clarkes and Cecil Hotel Employees Union,
Shimla and Shri Shyam Lal, General Secretary of the said union.
Shri D.P. Bhatiya, General Manager, Clarkes Hotel, Shimla with Shri Tara Chand,
Supervisor, Clarks Hotel Shimla.
Before this Court, it has been stated by Shri Kapoor Chand, President of the Oberoi Clarkes
and Cecil Hotel Employees Union, Shimla that, out of Court, a settlement/compromise has been
effected between the parties. He has also filed the memorandum of settlement, so arrived at
between the parties. Shri D.P. Bhatiya, General Manager, Clarks Hotel Shimla, has also stated in
the same trans.
2.
From the statements, made before this Court, I am satisfied that a lawful settlement
has already been effected between the parties, in terms of memorandum of settlement, which has
been filed before this Court.
3.
Consequently, in this regard, I proceed to record the statements of the parties, which
are recorded accordingly.
4.
The reference, which has been made to this Court, is as under:
“Whether the demands raised by the General Secretary, Hotel Oberoi Clarks and
Cecil Employees Union Shimla (Regd. No. 313/18/8/1984). Regd. Office, Hotel Oberoi
Clarks Shimla 171001 vide demand notice dated 17/12/2012 (copy enclosed) before the
General Manager, Clarks Hotel, The Mall Shimla regarding increment of wages on
percentage basis, is legal and justified? If yes, what monitory and other benefits, the
aggrieved workers/employees of the Hotel Oberoi Clarks are entitled to from the
above employer/management?”
5.
Since, a lawful settlement/compromise has been effected between the parties, in
terms of Ex. PA, the aforesaid reference, which has been made to this Court, stands disposed
of/answered. Be it clarified that memorandum of settlement, Ex. PA, and the statement of the
parties, recorded today, shall form part and parcel of the award passed by this Court. 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:
10/1/2014.
Presiding Judge,
Labour Court, Shimla.
6903
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx
vf/klwpuk
f”keyk&2] 21 Qjojh] 2014
la0ih0ch0MOY;w0¼ch0½,Q&¼5½ 31@2013-&&;r% fgekpy izns”k ds jkT;iky dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS
fd fgekpy izns”k ljdkj dks ljdkjh O;; ij lkoZtfud iz;kstu gsrq xkao uaxy fugyk] rglhy
ukykx<+] ftyk lksyu] fgekpy izns”k esasa jk’Vªh; mPp ekxZ&21, fiUtkSj&cn~nh&ukykx<+&Lokj?kkV dks
pkSM+k djus ds fuekZ.k gsrq Hkwfe vftZr djuh visf{kr gS] vr,o ,rn~}kjk ;g ?kksf’kr fd;k tkrk gS fd
fuEufyf[kr fooj.kh esa of.kZr Hkwfe mi;qZDr iz;kstu ds fy, visf{kr gSA
2- ;g ?kks’k.kk] Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 dh /kkjk&6 ds micU/kksa ds v/khu blls lEcfU/kr
lHkh O;fDr;ksa dks lwpuk gsrq dh tkrh gS rFkk mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&7 ds v/khu Hkw&vtZu lekgrkZ
yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx] foUVj QhYM f”keyk dks mDr Hkwfe ds vtZu djus ds vkns”k ysus dk ,rn~}kjk funs”k
fn;k tkrk gSA
3- Hkwfe js[kkad dk fujh{k.k Hkw&vtZu lekgrkZ] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx] foUVj QhYM f”keyk]
fgekpy izns”k ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gSA
fooj.kh
ftyk
rglhy
xkao
[kljk ua0
jdok ¼ch?kk esa½
lksyu
ukykx<+
uaxy fugyk
141@1
0&4
133@1
0&7
132
0&2
131@1
0&2
130@1
0&2
107@1
0&7
103@1
0&4
102@1
0&4
100@1
0&9
97@1
0&4
728@235@1
0&1
729@235@1
0&1
730@235@1
0&1
818@727@227@1
0&5
726@227@1
0&7
861@817@727@227@1
0&1
6904
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
862@817@727@227@1
0&2
225@1
0&5
224@1
0&2
211@1
0&3
210@1
0&6
777@209@1
0&1
776@209@1
0&1
777@209@1@1
0&1
940@208@1
0&1
936@208@1
0&1
935@208@1
0&1
196@1
0&1
718@198@1
0&1
717@198@1
0&1
769@197@1
0&3
808@770@197@1
0&4
807@770@197@1
0&1
195@1
0&2
194@1
0&4
169@1
0&18
167@1
0&15
150@1
0&8
149@1
0&4
934@208@1
0&2
941@208@1
0&1
939@208@1
0&1
98@1
0&3
fdrk% 43
7&14
vkns”k }kjk]
gLrk{kfjr@&
iz/kku lfpo ¼yksd fuekZ.k½A
6905
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
LFkkuh; ys[kk ijh{kk foHkkx
vf/klwpuk
f”keyk&171009] 19 Qjojh] 2014
la[;k% 1&60@69&fQu¼,y0,0½[k.M&XIX&1184-&&jkT;iky] fgekpy izns”k lg"kZ vkns”k nsrs gSa
fd LFkkuh; ys[kk ijh{kk foHkkx] fgekpy izns”k ds fuEufyf[kr vf/kdkjh muds uke ds vkxs n”kkZbZ xbZ
frfFk;ksa dks vf/kof"kZrk dh vk;q iw.kZ djus ij ljdkjh lsok ls lsok fuo`Ùk gksaxs%&&
Øe la[;k vf/kdkjh dk uke o inuke
lsok fuo`Ùk gksus dh frfFk
1- Jh lqjs”k pUn xqIrk] lgk;d funs”kd
28&02&2014 ¿vijkg~uÀ
¿izFke Js.kh&jktif=r}]
2- Jh txthr flag ifV;ky] lgk;d fu;U=d
31-05-+2014 ¿vijkg~uÀ
¿izFke Js.kh&jktif=rÀ]
3- Jh /keZ flag pkS/kjh] la;qDr fu;U=d
30-06-+2014 ¿vijkg~uÀ
¿izFke Js.kh&jktif=rÀ]
4- Jherh ehjk xkSÙke] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
30-06-+2014 ¿vijkg~uÀ
¿f}rh; Js.kh&jktif=rÀ]
vkns'k }kjk]
gLrk{kfjr@&
iz/kku lfpo ¼foÙk½A
&&&&&&&&&
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA-171001
NOTIFICATION
Shimla, the 3rd February, 2014
No.HHC/Admn.16(15)74-IV.—Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice, in exercise of the powers
vested in him U/S 139(b) of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908, U/S 297(b) of the code of Criminal
procedure, 1973 and Rule 5(vi) of the H.P. Oath Commissioners (Appointment & Control) Rules,
2007 has been pleased to appoint Sh. Hira Singh, Advocate, Kandaghat as oath Commissioner at
Kandaghat, H.P. for a period of two years, with immediate effect, for administering oaths and
affirmations on affidavits to the deponents, under the aforesaid Codes and Rules.
By order,
Sd/-
Registrar general.
6906
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
fgekpy izns”k fo/kku lHkk lfpoky;
vf/klwpuk
f'keyk] 21 Qjojh] 2014
la0%fo0l0&fo/kk;u&ljdkjh fo/ks;d@1&17@2014-&&fgekpy izns”k fo/kku lHkk dh izfdz;k ,oa
dk;Z lapkyu fu;ekoyh] 1973 ds fu;e] 262 o lnu }kjk ikfjr izLrko ds vuqlj.k esa ekuuh; v/;{k
egksn;] us lnu dh izoj lfefr esa lHkkifr ,oa lnL;ksa dk fuEu izdkj ls ukekadu fd;k gS %
1-
Jh dkSy flag Bkdqj]
Ekkuuh; LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k eU=h
%
lHkkifr
2-
Jh xqykc flag Bkdqj
%
lnL;
3-
Jh dqynhi dqekj
%
lnL;
4-
Jh vt; egktu
%
lnL;
5-
Jh fot; vfXugks=h
%
lnL;
6-
Jh djus”k tax
%
lnL;
7-
Jh cEcj Bkdqj
%
lnL;
lfefr] fgekpy izns”k yksdk;qDr fo/ks;d] 2014 ¼2014 dk fo/ks;d la[;kad 6½ ij fopkj djus ds
mijkUr lnu esa viuk izfrosnu izLrqr djsxhA
¼lqUnj flag oekZ½]
lfpo]
fg0 iz0 fo/kku lHkkA
_________
fgekpy izns”k fo/kku lHkk lfpoky;
vf/klwpuk
f'keyk] 21 Qjojh] 2014
la0%fo0l0&fo/kk;u&ljdkjh fo/ks;d@1&17@2014-&&fgekpy izns”k fo/kku lHkk dh izfØ;k ,oa
dk;Z lapkyu fu;ekoyh] 1973 ds fu;e] 262 o lnu }kjk ikfjr izLrko ds vuqlj.k esa ekuuh; v/;{k
egksn;] us lnu dh izoj lfefr esa lHkkifr ,oa lnL;ksa dk fuEu izdkj ls ukekadu fd;k gS %
1-
Jh lq/khj “kekZ]
Ekkuuh; “kgjh fodkl eU=h
%
lHkkifr
2-
Jherh vk”kk dqekjh
%
lnL;
3-
Jh egs”oj flag
%
lnL;
4-
Jh lqjs”k Hkkj}kt
%
lnL;
5-
Jh ch0ds0 pkSgku
%
lnL;
6-
Jh vfu:) flag
%
lnL;
7-
Jh lat; jrUk
%
lnL;
lfefr] fgekpy izns”k uxj vkSj xzke ;kstuk ¼la”kks/ku½ fo/ks;d] 2014 ¼2014 dk fo/ks;d la[;kad
5½ ij fopkj djus ds mijkUr lnu esa viuk izfrosnu izLrqr djsxhA
¼lqUnj flag oekZ½]
lfpo]
fg0 iz0 fo/kku lHkkA
6907
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
HIMACHAL PRADESH TWELFTH VIDHAN SABHA
NOTIFICATION
Shimla–171004, the 24th February, 2014
No. V.S.-Legn.-Pri/1-1/2013.—The following order by the Governor of the State of
Himachal Pradesh, dated the 22nd February, 2014 is hereby published for general information:—
^^eSa] mfeZyk flag] jkT;iky] fgekpy izns'k] Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 174 ¼2½ ¼,½ }kjk iznRRk
'kfDr;ksa ds vuqlj.k esa fgekpy izns'k ckjgoha fo/kku lHkk ds iape l= dk rRdky l=kolku djrh gwaA
mfeZyk flag]
jkT;iky]
fgekpy izns'kA**
By Order:–
SUNDER SINGH VERMA,
Secretary,
H.P. Vidhan Sabha.
_________
vf/klwpuk
f'keyk&171004] 24 Qjojh] 2014
la0%fo0l0&fo/kk;u&izk0@1&1@2013-&&jkT;iky egksn;k dk fuEufyf[kr vkns'k fnukad 22
Qjojh] 2014 loZlk/kkj.k dh lwpukFkZ izdkf'kr fd;k tkrk gS %&
^^eSa] mfeZyk flag] jkT;iky] fgekpy izns'k] Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 174 ¼2½ ¼,½ }kjk iznRRk
'kfDr;ksa ds vuqlj.k esa fgekpy izns'k ckjgoha fo/kku lHkk ds iape l= dk rRdky l=kolku djrh gwaA
mfeZyk flag]
jkT;iky]
fgekpy izns'kA**
vkns”k }kjk%&
lqUnj falag oekZ]
lfpo]
fg0iz0 fo/kku lHkkA
___________
dkfeZd foHkkx ¼fu;qfDr-II½
vf/klwpuk
f“keyk&2] 22 Qjojh] 2014
la[;k ij¼,ih&ch½,¼3½&5@2013-&&fgekpy izns“k dh jkT;iky] Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn
318 ds lkFk ifBr vuqPNsn 309 ds ijUrqd }kjk iznRr “kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] fgekpy izns“k yksd
6908
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
lsok vk;ksx ds ijke“kZ ls] bl foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk ij¼,ih-II½,¼3½1@88] rkjh[k 24&11&1995 }kjk
vf/klwfpr fgekpy izns“k yksd lsok vk;ksx esa] voj lfpo] ¼xSj&fgekpy izns“k iz“kklfud lsok½] oxZ-I
¼jktif=r½ HkrhZ vkSj izksUufr fu;e] 1995 esa 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 yksd lsok
vk;ksx] voj lfpo] ¼xSj&fgekpy izns“k iz“kklfud lsok½] oxZ-I ¼jktif=r½ HkrhZ vkSj izksUufr la“kks/ku
fu;e] 2014 gSA
¼2½
;s fu;e jkti=] fgekpy izns“k esa izdkf“kr fd, tkus dh rkjh[k ls izo`Rr gksaxsA
2-
mikcU/k-I dk la'kks/ku-&&¼1½ fgekpy izns“k yksd lsok vk;ksx] voj lfpo ¼xSj&fgekpy
izns“k iz“kklfud lsok½ oxZ-I ¼jktif=r½ HkrhZ vkSj izksUufr fu;e] 1995] ds mikcU/k-I esa(
¼d½ LrEHk la[;k 2 ds lkeus fo|eku micU/k ds LFkku ij fuEufyf[kr j[kk tk,xk] vFkkZr~%&
^^03 ¼rhu½**(
¼[k½ LrEHk la[;k 4 ds lkeus fo|eku micU/k ds LFkku ij fuEufyf[kr j[kk tk,xk] vFkkZr~%&
^^is cS.M 15600&39100 #i,$6600 #i, xzsM is**( vkSj
¼x½
LrEHk la[;k 11 ds lkeus fo|eku micU/k ds LFkku ij fuEufyf[kr j[kk tk,xk] vFkkZr~%&
^^vuqHkkx vf/kdkfj;ksa esa ls izksUufr }kjk ftudk ik¡p o’kZ dk fu;fer lsokdky gks ;k xzsM
esa dh xbZ yxkrkj rnFkZ lsok] ;fn dksbZ gks] dks lfEefyr djds ikap o’kZ dk fu;fer
lsokdky gks] ,slk u gksus ij vuqHkkx vf/kdkfj;ksa esa ls izksUufr }kjk ftudk vuqHkkx
vf/kdkjh vkSj v/kh{kd xzsM-II dk la;qDrr% 6 ¼Ng½ o’kZ dk fu;fer lsokdky gks ;k xzsM
esa dh xbZ yxkrkj rnFkZ lsok] ;fn dksbZ gks dks lfEefyr dj Ng o’kZ dk fu;fer
lsokdky gks ftlesa vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh ds :i esa rhu o’kZ dh vfuok;Z lsok Hkh lfeefyr
gksxhA
mijksDr iSjk esa fdlh ckr ds gksrs gq, Hkh] jftLVªkj@vfrfjDr jftLVªkj ds in]
igys ls /kkj.k djus okys vf/kdkfj;ksa ij ftudh jftLVªkj@vfrfjDr jftLVªkj vkSj
vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh ds :i esa Ng o’kZ dk lsokdky gS] izksUufr ds fy,] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh ds
:Ik esa mudh ofj’Brk ds Øe esa fopkj fd;k tk,xk rFkk rRi”pkr~ jftLVªkj@vfrfjDr
jftLVªkj@la;qDr fu;U=d ds in lekIr gks tk,axsA
izksUUkfr ds lHkh ekeyksa esa in ij fu;fer fu;qfDr ls iwoZ laHkjd iks’kd in esa dh
xbZ yxkrkj rnFkZ lsok] ;fn dksbZ gks] izksUUkfr ds fy, bu fu;eksa esa ;Fkk fofgr 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 ,oa izksUufr fu;eksa ds micU/kksa ds vuqlkj p;u dh mfpr Lohdk;Z
izfØ;k dks viukus ds i”pkr~ dh xbZ Fkh %
(i) ijUrq mu lHkh ekeyksa esa] ftuesa dksbZ dfu’B O;fDr laHkjd in esa vius dqy lsokdky
rnFkZ vk/kkj ij dh xbZ lsok lfgr] tks fu;fer lsok@fu;qfDr ds vuqlj.k esa gksa] ds
vk/kkj ij mi;qZDr fufnZ’V mica/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,axs %
6909
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
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;wUkre vgZrk lsok ;k in ds HkrhZ vkSj izksUufr fu;eksa
esa fofgr lsok] tks Hkh de gks] gksxh %
ijUrq ;g vkSj Hkh fd] tgk¡ dksbZ O;fDr iowZxkeh ijUrqd dh vis{kkvksa ds dkj.k
izksUufr fd, tkus laca/kh fopkj ds fy, vik= gks tkrk gS] ogka mlls dfu’B O;fDr Hkh
,slh izksUufr ds fy, vik= le>k tk,xk@le>s tk,axsA
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 HkwriwoZ lSfud gS] ftls fMeksfoykbZTM vkeZM
QksflZl ilZuy fjtosZ”ku vkWQ oSdsUlht+ bu fgekpy LVsV ukWu&VSDuhdy lfoZlht+ :Yt+]
1972 ds fu;e&3 ds micU/kksa ds vUrXkZr HkrhZ fd;k x;k gks vkSj blds vUrxZr ojh;rk
ykHk fn, x, gksa ;k ftls ,Dl&lfoZleSu fjtoZs”ku vkWQ oSdsUlht+ bu nh fgekpy izns”k
VSDuhdy lfoZlht+ :Yt+] 1985 ds fu;e&3 ds micU/kksasa ds vUrxZr] HkrhZ fd;k x;k gks
vkSj blds vUrxZr ojh;rk ykHk fn, x, gksaA
¼2½ blh izdkj LFkk;hdj.k ds lHkh ekeyksa esa ,sls in ij fu;fer fu;qfDr@izksUufr ls iwoZ
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 i”pkr~] tks
LFkk;hdj.k gksxk mlds QyLo:Ik ikjLifjd ojh;rk vifjofrZr jgsxhA**
vkns'k }kjk]
ih0 fe=k0]
eq[; lfpoA
___________
[Authoritative English Text of this Department Notification No. Per(AP-B)A(3)5/2013 dated
22-02-2014 as required under clause (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution of India].
PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT (AP-II)
NOTIFICATION
Shimla-171002, 22nd February, 2014
No. Per(AP-B)A(3)5/2013.—In exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309
read with Article 318 of the Constitution of India, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, in consultation
with Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, is pleased to make the following rules further
to amend the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, Under Secretary, (Non-HAS)
(Gezetted Class-I) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1995 notified vide this Department’s
notification No. Per(AP-II)A(3)1/88, Dated 24-11-1995 and published in the Rajpatra, Himachal
Pradesh, Dated 30-12-1995, namely:—
1.
Short title and commencement.—(1) These rules may be called the Himachal
Pradesh Public Service Commission, Under Secretary, (Non-HAS) (Gezetted Class-I) Recruitment
and Promotion (Amendment) Rules, 2014.
6910
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
(2)
These rules shall come into force from the date of publication in the Rajpatra,
Himachal Pradesh.
2.
Amendment of Annexure-I.—In Annexure-I to the Himachal Pradesh Public
Service Commission, Under Secretary (Non-HAS) (Gezetted Class-I) Recruitment and Promotion
Rules, 1995,:—
(a)
For the existing provision against Column No. 2, the following shall be substituted,
namely:—
“03 (three)”;
(b)
For the existing provision against Column No. 4, the following shall be substituted,
namely:—
“Pay band ` 15600-39100 + ` 6600 Grade Pay”; and
(c)
For the existing provision against Column No. 11, the following shall be substituted,
namely:—
“By promotion from amongst Section Officers who possess (05) five years’ regular
service or regular combined with continuous adhoc service, if any, in the grade
failing which by promotion from amongst the Section Officers who possess 06 (six)
years’ regular service or regular combined with continuous adhoc service, if any,
combined as Section Officer and Superintendent Grade-II; which shall include
essential service of 03 years’ as Section Officer.
Notwithstanding anything contained in para supra, the officers already
holding the posts of Registrar/Additional Registrar having six years service as
Registrar/Additional Registrar and Section Officer shall be considered for promotion
in order of their seniority as Section Officer and thereafter the posts of
Registrar/Additional Registrar/Joint Controller shall stand abolished.
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 provisions of R&P Rules:
Provided that where a junior person becomes eligible for consideration by
virtue of his/her total length of service (including the 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 R&P Rules for the post, whichever is less:
Provided further that where a 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.
6911
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
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
exservicemen recruited under the provisions of Rule-3 of the Demobilized Armed
Forces Personnel (Reservation of vacancies in the 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 Ex-Serviceman (Reservation of
vacancies in the Himachal Pradesh Technical Services) Rules, 1985 and having been
given the benefit of seniority thereunder.
(2) Similarly, in all cases of confirmation, continuous adhoc service rendered on the
feeder post, if any, prior to the regular appointment/promotion 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:
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,
P. MITRA,
Chief Secretary.
&&&&&&&&
c vnkyr Jh ys[k jke /kheku] uk;c rglhynkj ,oa dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] mi&rglhy /khjk]
ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'k
dsl ua0 % 02@2013
rkjh[k nk;j % 12&2&2014
rkjh[k is'kh % 10&3&2014
'kh"kZd %
Jh latho dqekj iq= Jh feyki pUn] fuoklh xkao vkSp] Mk0 xxy] mi&rglhy /khjk] ftyk
dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'k
- - izkFkÊA
cuke
iz/kku xzke iapk;r xxy] mi&rglhy /khjk] ftyk dkaxM+k
izkFkZuk&i= v/khu /kkjk 13 ¼3½ tUe ,oa e`R;q iathdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1969-
mijksDr izkFkÊ us bl U;k;ky; esa izkFkZuk&i= e; 'kiFk&i= is'k fd;k gS fd mldk tUe xkao
vkSp] Mk0 xxy] mi&rglhy /khjk] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'k esa fnukad 21&12&1989 dks gqvk gS exj
vKkurko'k xzke iapk;r xxy ds vfHkys[k esa ntZ u gSA
vr% b'rgkj jkti= }kjk loZlk/kkj.k dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn fdlh dks bl ckjs dksbZ
mtj ;k ,rjkt gks rks og fnukad 10&3&2014 dks izkr% 10-00 cts vlkyru ;k odkyru vnkyr esa
gkftj vkdj is'k dj ldrk gSA blds ckn dksbZ mtj ;k ,rjkt ugha lquk tk,xk rFkk latho dqekj iq=
6912
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
Jh feyki pUn] fuoklh xkao vkSp] Mk0 xxy] mi&rglhy /khjk] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'k ds tUe
iathdj.k ds vkns'k lEcfU/kr xzke iapk;r xxy dks ikfjr dj fn, tk,axsA
eksgjA
ys[k jke /kheku]
uk;c rglhynkj ,oa dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh]
mi&rglhy /khjk] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'kA
&&&&&&&&
c vnkyr Jh Mh0 lh0 Bkdqj] dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] cStukFk] ftyk dkaxM+k ¼fg0 iz0½
Jh tjuSy flag iq= Jh fojlk flag] fuoklh xkao o Mk0 fHkjM+h] 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-
Jh tjuSy flag iq= Jh fojlk flag] fuoklh xkao o Mk0 fHkjM+h] rglhy cStukFk] ftyk dkaxM+k]
fgekpy izns'k us bl vnkyr esa izkFkZuk&i= xqtkjk gS fd mlds iq= gjeu dk tUe fnukad 3&8&2009
dks egky fHkjM+h esa 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 20&3&2014 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 10&2&2014 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr }kjk tkjh gqvkA
eksgjA
Mh0 lh0 Bkdqj]
dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh]
cStukFk] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'kA
&&&&&&&&
c vnkyr Jh Mh0 lh0 Bkdqj] dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] cStukFk] ftyk dkaxM+k ¼fg0 iz0½
Jh dY;k.k pUn iq= Jh fudw jke] fuoklh xkao o Mk0 <.Mksy] 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-
Jh dY;k.k pUn iq= Jh fudw jke] fuoklh xkao o Mk0 <.Mksy] rglhy cStukFk] ftyk dkaxM+k]
fgekpy izns'k us bl vnkyr esa izkFkZuk&i= xqtkjk gS fd mlds Hkrhts iadt dqekj lqiq= Jh lat;
6913
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
dqekj dk tUe fnukad 7&2&2004 dks egky <.Mksy esa 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 20&3&2014 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 10&2&2014 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr }kjk tkjh gqvkA
eksgjA
Mh0 lh0 Bkdqj]
dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh]
cStukFk] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'kA
&&&&&&&&
c vnkyr lgk;d lekgrkZ f}rh; Js.kh] gkjpfd;ka] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'k
Jh vej ukFk iq= Jh izHkq] fuoklh egky xqtjsM+k] ekStk eusbZ] rglhy gkjpfd;ka] ftyk dkaxM+k]
fgekpy izns'kA
cuke
vke turk
fo"k;-&&izkFkZuk&i= lsgr ukeA
Jh vej ukFk iq= Jh izHkq] fuoklh egky xqtjsM+k] ekStk eusbZ] rglhy gkjpfd;ka us bl vnkyr
esa izkFkZuk&i= e; C;ku gYQh xqtkjk gS fd jktLo vfHkys[k iVokj o`Ùk eusbZ esa mldk uke ?ku';ke ntZ
gS tks fd lgh ugha gSA lgh uke vejukFk iq= Jh izHkq gSA
vr% bl b'rgkj jkti= ds ek/;e ls loZlk/kkj.k dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn fdlh dks
dksbZ mtj ;k ,rjkt gks rks og fnukad 20&4&2014 dks izkr% 10-00 cts is'k dj ldrk gSA ckn is'kh
dksbZ mtj o ,rjkt ugha lquk tk,xk rFkk jktLo vfHkys[k esa f=yksd flag mQZ f=yksd pUn ds uke dh
n#Lrh ds vkns'k ns fn, tk,axsA
vkt fnukad 11&4&2014 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr ls tkjh gqvkA
eksgjA
gLrk{kfjr@&
lgk;d lekgrkZ f}rh; Js.kh]
gkjpfd;ka] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'kA
&&&&&&&&
c vnkyr dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] gkjpfd;ka] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'k
Jh ;'kiky flag iq= Jh Hkwfj flag] fuoklh xqOoj] ekStk izxkSM+] rglhy gkjpfd;ka] ftyk dkaxM+k]
fgekpy izns'kA
cuke
vke turk
6914
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
fo"k;-&&izkFkZuk&i= tsj /kkjk 13 ¼3½ tUe ,oa e`R;q iathdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1969-
mijksDr izkFkÊ Jh ;'kiky flag us v/kksgLrk{kjh dh vnkyr esa izkFkZuk&i= e; C;ku gYQh bl
vk'k; ls xqtkjk gS fd mlds yM+ds jkgqy Hkkj}kt iq= Jh ;'kiky flag dh tUe frfFk 26&2&2001 gSA
tks fd xzke iapk;r izxkSM+ ds jftLVj esa ntZ u gSA ftls ntZ fd;k tkosA
bl lEcU/k esa loZlk/kkj.k dks ctfj;k b'rgkj lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd izkFkÊ ds iq= jkgqy
Hkkj}kt dh tUe frfFk xzke iapk;r izxkSM+ ds fjdkWMZ esa ntZ djus ij ;fn fdlh dks dksbZ vkifÙk ;k
,rjkt gks rks og fnukad 20&3&2014 dks vlkyru ;k odkyru vnkyr v/kksgLrk{kjh vkdj viuk
,rjkt ntZ djok ldrk gSA dksbZ ,rjkt ntZ u gksus dh lwjr eas ,drjQk dk;Zokgh vey esa ykbZ tk
djds uke o tUe frfFk ntZ djus ds vkns'k ns fn, tk,axsA
vkt fnukad 10&2&2014 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr ls tkjh gqvkA
eksgjA
gLrk{kfjr@&
dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh]
gkjpfd;ka] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'kA
&&&&&&&&
In the Court of Shri Shivdev Singh, Executive Magistrate, Tehsil Dharamshala, District
Kangra, Himachal Pradesh
1.
Shri Vishal Rai s/o Shri Ashok Rai, r/o Ram Nagar , Tehsil Dharamshala, District
Kangra.
2. Smt. Sumam Sharma d/o Shri Vijay Shekhar, r/o Nal, Tehsil and District Bilaspur.
Versus
1. General Public, 2. The Registrar of Marriages.
PUBLIC NOTICE :
Whereas the above named applicants have made an application under section 8 (4) of the
Himachal Pradesh Registration of Marriages Act, 1996 alongwith an affidavit stating therein that
they have solemnized their marriage on 29-10-2012 at Ram Nagar but has not been found entered
in the records of the Registrar of Marriages i. e. Secretary, G. P./M. C. Dharamshala.
And whereas, they have also stated that they were not aware of the laws for the registration
of marriage with the Registrar of Marriages and now, therefore, necessary orders for the
registration of their marriage be passed so that their marriage may be registered by the concerned
authority.
Now, therefore, objections are invited from the general public that if anyone has any
objection regarding the registration of the marriage of the above named applicants, they should
appear before the court of undersigned on 7-3-2014 at Tehsil Office Dharamshala at 10.00 A. M.
either personally or through their authorized agent.
In the event of their failure to do so, orders shall be passed exparte for the registration of
marriage without affording any further opportunity of being heard.
6915
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
Issued under my hand and seal of the Court on 6-2-2014.
Seal.
SHIVDEV SINGH,
Executive Magistrate,
Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.
__________
c vnkyr Jh f'konso flag] rglhynkj ,oa dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] rglhy /keZ'kkyk]
ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'k
Jh iq.kZ pUn
cuke
vke turk o vU;
fo"k;-&&izkFkZuk&i= tsj /kkjk 13 ¼3½ tUe ,oa e`R;q iathdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1969-
uksfVl cuke vke turkA
Jh iq.kZ pUn iq= Jh bUnz flag] fuoklh dkykiqy ¼dtyksV½] rglhy /keZ'kkyk] ftyk dkaxM+k us
bl vnkyr esa 'kiFk&i= lfgr eqdíek nk;j fd;k gS fd mldh iq=h uhrw dh tUe frfFk 27&9&1989 gS
ijUrq xzke iapk;r dtyksV esa tUe iathd`r u gSA vr% bls iathd`r fd;s tkus ds vkns'k fn;s tk;saA bl
uksfVl ds }kjk leLr turk dks rFkk lEcfU/kr fj'rsnkjksa dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn fdlh dks
mijksDr cPps uhrw dh tUe frfFk iathdj.k fd;s tkus ckjs dksbZ ,rjkt gks rks og viuk ,rjkt gekjh
vnkyr esa fnukad 7&3&2014 dks vlkyru ;k odkyru gkftj vkdj is'k dj ldrk gS vU;Fkk eqrkfcd
'kiFk&i= tUe frfFk iath—r fd;s tkus ckjs vkns'k ikfjr dj fn;s tk,axsA
vkt fnukad 11&2&2014 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr }kjk tkjh fd;k x;kA
eksgjA
f'konso flag]
rglhynkj ,oa dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh]
/keZ'kkyk] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'kA
&&&&&&&&
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA
NOTICE
Dated 13-2-2014
Shri Gurnam Singh, Advocate s/o Late Shri Bhag Singh, r/o Vill. and P. O. Nagrota Surian,
Tehsil and District Kangra has applied for the post of Notary Public at Sub-Division kangra. Before
recommending the case of the applicant to the Govt. of H. P. for the appointment as Notary Public,
6916
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 24 Qjojh] 2014@5 QkYxqu] 1935
the objections of General Public if any are invited through this notice. If any person has objection
for appointment of the applicant, he may send the objections in writing to this office on or before
15-3-2014.
Sd/-
Additional District Magistrate,
Kangra at Dharamshala.
fu;U=d] eqnz.k rFkk ys[ku lkexzh] fgekpy izns'k] f'keyk&5 }kjk eqfnzr rFkk izdkf'kr
bysDVªkWfud gLrk{kfjr jkti=] oSclkbV http://rajpatrahimachal.nic.in ij miyC/k gS ,oe~ vkWuykbu lR;kfir fd;k tk ldrk gS