jkti=] fgekpy izns'k

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

f”keyk] 'kqØokj] 6 twu] 2014@16 T;s"B] 1936

fgekpy izns'k ljdkj

HIMACHAL PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, SHIMLA

NOTIFICATION

Shimla, the 2^nd June, 2014

No. HPERC/Secy/151.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section

92 and clause(zl) of sub-section(2) of section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003(36 of 2003), read

with section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897(10 of 1897), and all other powers enabling it in

this behalf, and after previous publication, the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory

Commission makes the following amendment in the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory

Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2005, namely:—

45&jkti=@2014&6&6&2014 ¼953½

954

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2014@16 T;s"B] 1936

REGULATIONS

Short title and commencement.—(1) These regulations may be called the Himachal

Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) (Eighth Amendment)

Regulations, 2014.

(2) These regulations shall come into force from the date of their publication in the

Rajpatra, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Amendment of Schedule.—In the Schedule to the Himachal Pradesh Electricity

Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2005-

(1) In serial No. 2.—

(A) under the heading “(a) Hydel Projects”, after item (ii), the following item (iii) shall be

inserted, namely:—

“(iii)

Application

for

subsequent

determination of Annual Fixed Cost

under each M.Y.T. including periodic

review and true up

(iii)

10% of the fee paid for tariff

determination under item (i)

above.

Note:— Wherever application is for

composite issues only one fee

shall be charged.”

(B)

the existing item, under the heading “(b) Renewable energy generation projects,”

shall be numbered as item no. (1), after item (1) so renumbered, the following

item(2) shall be inserted, namely:—

“(2)

Application for Annual Fixed Cost,

performance review, periodic review,

including trueup

the

fee

paid

for

tariff

determination under item 1 above.

Note:— Wherever application is for

composite issues only one fee

shall be charged.”

(2) In column No. (4), against serial no. 5 -B, the following entry shall be substituted,

namely:—

“(i) for projects upto 2MW capacity

` 10,000/-

(ii) for projects above 2 MW and upto 5MW capacity

` 20,000/-

(iii) for projects above 5 MW capacity

` 50,000/-"

(3) In column no. (4), against serial no. 6 the following entry shall be substituted,

namely:—

“(i) for projects upto 2MW capacity Nil

Nil

(ii) for projects above 2 MW capacity

` 10,000/-

(iii) for projects above 5 MW capacity

` 25,000/-"

(4) In column no. (4), against serial no. 7, after the words “tariff determination”, the words

“subject to maximum of Rs. 50,000” shall be inserted.

By order of the Commission

Sd/-

Secretary.

955

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2014@16 T;s"B] 1936

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA - 171 001

NOTIFICATION

Shimla, the 30^th May, 2014

No. HHC/GAZ/14-58/75-XIII.—It is hereby notified for information of the Civil

Judges(Junior Division) concerned that the 62nd Departmental Examination under Rule 18 of the

Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2004 will be held in the premises of the High Court,

Shimla-171 001 on the following dates:--

Date

Paper/subject

Time

Thursday

July 17, 2014

Criminal Law

Civil Law

10 AM to 1 PM

2 PM to 5 PM

Friday

July 18, 2014

Revenue Law-I

Revenue Law-II

10 AM to 1 PM

2 PM to 5 PM

Saturday

July 19, 2014

Accounts

Constitutional Law

10 AM to 1 PM

2 PM to 5 PM

By order,

SUSHIL KUKREJA,

Registrar (Rules),

Secretary,

Departmental Examination Committee.

________

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA171 001

NOTIFICATION

Shimla, the 28th May, 2014

No. HHC/GAZ/14-333/2013.—Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice has been pleased to grant

ex post facto sanction of 02 days commuted leave for 8.5.2014 & 9.5.2014 with permission to

suffix Second Saturday and Sunday which fell on 10.5.2014 & 11.5.2014 in favour of Shri Nav

Kamal, Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- JMIC(VII), Shimla, H.P.

Certified that Shri Nav Kamal has joined the same post and at the same station from where

he proceeded on leave, after expiry of the above period of leave.

Also certified that Shri Nav Kamal would have continued to hold the post of Civil Judge

(Junior Division)-cum-JMIC (VII), Shimla, H.P., but for her proceeding on leave for the above

period.

By order,

Sd/-

Registrar General.

956

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2014@16 T;s"B] 1936

HIGH COURTOF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-171001

NOTIFICATION

Shimla, the 30^th May, 2014

No. HHC/Estt.3(149)/80.--12 days earned leave on and w.e.f. 02.06.2014 to 13.06.2014,

with permission to prefix Sunday falling on 01.06.2014 and suffix second Saturday & Sunday

falling on 14th and 15th June 2014, is hereby sanctioned , in favour of Shri Faryad Bhatti, Assistant

Registrar, of this Registry.

Certified that Shri Faryad Bhatti is likely to join the same same post and at the same station

from where he procceds on leave after the expiry of the above leave period.

Certified that Shri Faryad Bhatti would have continued to officiate the same post of

Assistant Registrar but for his proceedings on above leave.

By order,

Sd/-

Registrar General.

_______

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA -171001

NOTIFICATION

Shimla, the 29^th May, 2014

No.HHC/GAZ/ 14-326/2012.—Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice has been pleased to grant

06 days’ earned leave w.e.f. 2.6.2014 to 7.6.2014 with permission to prefix and suffix Sundays

falling on 1.6.2014 and 8.6.2014 in favour of Ms. Monika Sombal, Civil Judge (Junior Division)-

cum-JMIC (II), Hamirpur, H.P.

Certified that Ms. Monika Sombal is likely to join the same post and at the same station

from where she proceeds on leave, after expiry of the above period of leave.

Also certified that Ms. Monika Sombal would have continued to hold the same post of Civil

Judge (Junior Division)-cum-JMIC (II), Hamirpur, H.P., but for her proceeding on leave for the

above period.

By order,

Sd/-

Registrar General.

_______

HIGH COURTOF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-171001

NOTIFICATION

Shimla, the 31^st May, 2014

No. HHC/Admn.3(391)/94.—15 days earned leave on and w.e.f. 10.05.2014 to 24.05.2014

(extended period) , with permission to suffix Sunday 25.05.2014, is hereby sanctioned ,ex-post-

facto, in favour of Shri Anil Kumar Sharma , Secretary, of this Registry.

957

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2014@16 T;s"B] 1936

Certified that Shri Anil Kumar Sharma has joined the same same post and at the same

station from where he had proceeded on leave after the expiry of the above leave period.

Certified that Shri Anil Kumar Sharma would have continued to officiate the same post of

Secretary but for his proceedings on above leave.

By order,

Sd/-

Registrar general.

_______

HIGH COURTOF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-171001

NOTIFICATION

Shimla, the 19^th May, 2014.

No. HHC/Admn.3(230)/86.—13 days earned leave for 19.05.2014 and 31.05.2014, with

permission to affix Sundays falling on 18.05.2014 and 01.06.2014, is hereby sanctioned , in favour

of Shri Vijay Chand Verma , Assistant Registrar, of this Registry.

Certified that Shri Vijay Chand Verma is likely to join the same post and at the same station

from where he proceeds on leave after the expiry of the above leave period.

Certified that Shri Vijay Chand Verma would have continued to officiate the same post of

Assistant Registrar but for his proceeding on above leave.

By order,

Sd/-

Registrar General.

_______

LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-2, 16^th May, 2014

No. Sharm (A) 7-1/2005 (Awards) L-D/Shala.—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 D/Shala on the website of the Department of Labour & Employment of the Government of

Himachal Pradesh.

Sr.

No.

Case No.

Title of the Case

Date of

Award

189/2013

S/Shri Mintu Ram V/s E.E.HPPWD, Joginder Nagar.

20-02-2014

190/2013

Manohar Lal V/s -do-

20-02-2014

195/2013

Suti Devi V/S -do-

20-02-2014

187/2013

Ran Singh V/S -do-

20-02-2014

181/2013

Secy. Changu Hydro V/s Vice President I.A Energy.

21-02-2014

958

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2014@16 T;s"B] 1936

17/2014

Dharam Chand V/s E.E. HPPWD Joginder Nagar.

22-02-2014

18/2014

Raj Kumar V/s -do-

22-02-2014

20/2014

Roshan Lal V/s -do-

22-02-2014

22/2014

Pradhan Singh V/s -do-

22-02-2014

10.

23/2014

Kanta Devi V/s -do-

22-02-2014

11.

161/2013

Phula Devi V/s -do-

24-02-2014

12.

128/2013

Kartar Singh V/s -do-

24-02-2014

13.

144/2013

Rumla Devi V/s -do-

24-02-2014

14.

142/2013

Mansa Devi V/s -do-

24-02-2014

15.

143/2013

Madan Lal V/s -do-

24-02-2014

16.

159/2013

Dan Singh V/s -do-

24-02-2014

17.

71/2013

Khyali Ram V/s -do-

24-02-2014

18.

160/2013

Devi Singh V/s -do-

24-02-2014

19.

165/2013

Sardaru Ram V/s -do-

24-02-2014

20.

163/2013

Inder Singh V/S -do-

24-02-2014

21.

167/2013

Dinesh Kumar V/s -do-

24-02-2014

22.

137/2013

Subhash Chand V/s -do-

24-02-2014

23.

166/2013

Nag Pal V/s -do-

24-02-2014

24.

164/2013

Ram Dev V/s -do-

24-02-2014

25.

179/2013

Milap Chand V/s -do-

24-02-2014

26.

338/2012

Joginder Singh V/s Mohan Singh

25-02-2014

27.

42/2011

Rattan Chand V/s E.E. HPPWD, Dharampur

28-02-2014

28.

34/2013

Vinod kumar V/s -do-

28-02-2014

By order,

(R. D. DHIMAN),

Pr.Secretary ( Labour & Employment).

_________

IN THE COURT OF RAJAN GUPTA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

Ref: No. : 189/2013

Shri Mintu Ram s/o Shri Jagdish Chand, r/o Village Kohra, P.O. Sainthal, Tehsil Joginder

Nagar, District Mandi, H. P.

..Petitioner.

Versus

The Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.

..Respondent.

20-02-2014 Present: Sh. Vijay Kaundal, Adv., csl. for the petitioner.

Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, A.D.A. for the respondent.

Ld. csl. for the petitioner states at bar that the industrial dispute involved between the

parties in this reference has already been decided by this Court per Award dated 28-06-2011 passed

in reference No. 160/2006 titled as Smt. Vidya Devi and others –vs- The Executive Engineer,

HPPWD (B&R) Division, Joginder Nagar. For the said reason, he does not want to proceed with

this reference and it be dismissed as withdrawn.

2. Ordered accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs.

959

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2014@16 T;s"B] 1936

3. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

4. A copy of this Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for further

necessary action at its end.

5. File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:

(RAJAN GUPTA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-

Industrial Tribunal,

Dharamshala, H.P.

___________

IN THE COURT OF RAJAN GUPTA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

Ref: No. : 190/2013

Shri Manohar Lal s/o Shri Charan Dass, r/o Village Kohra, P.O. Sainthal, Tehsil Joginder

Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.

..Petitioner.

Versus

The Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.

..Respondent.

20-02-2014 Present: Sh. Vijay Kaundal, Adv., csl. for the petitioner.

Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, A.D.A. for the respondent.

Ld. csl. for the petitioner states at bar that the industrial dispute involved between the

parties in this reference has already been decided by this Court per Award dated 28-06-2011 passed

in reference No. 160/2006 titled as Smt. Vidya Devi and others –vs- The Executive Engineer,

HPPWD (B&R) Division, Joginder Nagar. For the said reason, he does not want to proceed with

this reference and it be dismissed as withdrawn.

Ordered accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs.

3. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

4. A copy of this Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for further

necessary action at its end.

5. File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.

(RAJAN GUPTA)

Announced:

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-

Industrial Tribunal,

Dharamshala, H.P.

960

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2014@16 T;s"B] 1936

IN THE COURT OF RAJAN GUPTA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

Ref: No. : 195/2013

Smt. Suti Devi w/o Shri Anoop Singh, r/o Village Amehar, P.O. Basona, Tehsil Joginder

Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P.

..Petitioner.

Versus

The Executive Engineer, B&R Division H.P.P.W.D., Joginder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P.

..Respondent.

20-02-2014 Present: None for the petitioner.

Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, A.D.A. for the respondent.

The case has been called out repeatedly at intervals before and after the lunch. None has

appeared on behalf of the claimant/petitioner. She is absent despite personal service. It is already

2.40 p.m. Since the petitioner has failed to appear and file any statement of claim/demand, the ld.

A.D.A. states at bar that he does not want to file any reply.

2. The above noted facts amply demonstrate that the petitioner is not interested to pursue

the matter. Consequently, she is not entitled to any relief. No break in service (as per the reference)

was provided to the petitioner by the respondent. Parties to bear their own costs.

3. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

4. A copy of this Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for further

necessary action at its end.

5. Be consigned to the Records after due completion.

Announced:

(RAJAN GUPTA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-

Industrial Tribunal,

Dharamshala, H.P

_________

IN THE COURT OF RAJAN GUPTA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

Ref: No. : 187/2013

Sh. Ran Singh s/o Shri Jagat Ram, r/o Village Dhurli, P.O. Langna, Tehsil Joginder Nagar,

Distt. Mandi, H.P.

..Petitioner.

Versus

The Executive Engineer, B&R Division H.P.P.W.D., Joginder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P.

..Respondent.

961

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2014@16 T;s"B] 1936

20-02-2014 Present: None for the petitioner.

Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, A.D.A. for the respondent.

The case has been called out repeatedly at intervals before and after the lunch. None has

appeared on behalf of the claimant/petitioner. He is absent despite knowledge. It is already 2.30

p.m. The petitioner has failed to file any statement of claim/demand as per the last / Court order.

Ld. A.D.A. states at bar that he does not want to file any reply since no statement of claim/demand

has been preferred by the claimant/petitioner.

2. As no claim petition has been filed and the petitioner is absent despite knowledge, I am

satisfied that he is not interested to pursue the matter. Consequently, he is not entitled to any relief.

No break in service (as per the reference) was provided to the petitioner by the respondent. Parties

to bear their own costs.

3. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

4. A copy of this Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for further

necessary action at its end.

5. Be consigned to the Records after due completion.

Announced:

(RAJAN GUPTA),

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-

Industrial Tribunal,

Dharamshala, H.P

__________

IN THE COURT OF RAJAN GUPTA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

Ref: No. : 181/2013

Secretary & President, Chanju Hydro Power Project Union, V.P.O. Tikrigarh, Tehsil

Churah, Distt. Chamba, H.P. (Un-registered).

..Petitioner.

Versus

The Vice President, IA Energy Chanju-I (36MW), Tehsil Churah, Distt. Chamba, H.P.

..Respondent.

21-02-2014 Present: None for the petitioner.

Sh. Vijay Kaundal, Adv. csl. for the respondent.

The case has been called out repeatedly at intervals before and after the lunch. None has

appeared on behalf of the petitioner/claimant. He and his ld. csl. are absent despite knowledge. It is

already 3.00 p.m. The petitioner/claimant has failed to file any statement of claim/demand despite

the grant of two opportunities. Ld. csl. for the respondent states at bar that he does not want to file

any reply since no statement of claim/demand has been preferred by the petitioner.

2. The above noted facts amply demonstrate that the petitioner is not interested to pursue

the matter. Consequently, he is not entitled to any relief. Less wages (as per the reference) were not

962

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2014@16 T;s"B] 1936

paid to the petitioner by the respondent. The petitioner is not entitled to any arrear. Parties to bear

their own costs.

3. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

4. A copy of this Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for further

necessary action at its end.

5. Be consigned to the Records after due completion.

Announced:

(RAJAN GUPTA),

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-

Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P.

_________

IN THE COURT OF RAJAN GUPTA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

Ref: No. : 17/2014

Shri Dharam Chand s/o Shri Faganu Ram, r/o Village Kahali, P.O. Chauntra, Tehsil

Joginder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P.

..Petitioner.

Versus

The Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.

..Respondent.

22-02-2014 Present: None for the petitioner.

Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, A.D.A. for the respondent.

The case has been called out repeatedly at intervals before and after the lunch. None has

appeared on behalf of the claimant/petitioner. He is absent despite personal service. It is already

3.00 p.m. Since the petitioner has failed to appear in the Court despite service/knowledge and file

any statement of claim/demand, ld. A.D.A. states at bar that he does not want to file any reply.

2. The above noted facts go to show that the petitioner is not interested to pursue the

matter. Consequently, he is not entitled to any relief. No intentional break in service was provided

to the petitioner by the respondent (as per the reference) during the course of the employment.

Parties to bear their own costs.

3. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

4. A copy of this Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for further

necessary action at its end.

5. Be consigned to the Records after due completion.

Announced:

(RAJAN GUPTA),

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-

Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P.

963

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2014@16 T;s"B] 1936

IN THE COURT OF RAJAN GUPTA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

Ref: No. : 18/2014

Shri Raj Kumar s/o Sh. Prakam Chand, r/o Village Barnau, P.O. Chauntra, Tehsil Joginder

Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P.

..Petitioner.

Versus

The Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.

..Respondent.

22-02-2014 Present: None for the petitioner.

Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, A.D.A. for the respondent.

The case has been called out repeatedly at intervals before and after the lunch. None has

appeared on behalf of the claimant/petitioner. He is absent despite personal service. It is already

3.00 p.m. Since the petitioner has failed to appear in the Court despite service/knowledge and file

any statement of claim/demand, ld. A.D.A. states at bar that he does not want to file any reply.

2. The above noted facts go to show that the petitioner is not interested to pursue the

matter. Consequently, he is not entitled to any relief. No intentional break in service was provided

to the petitioner by the respondent (as per the reference) during the course of the employment.

Parties to bear their own costs.

3. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

4. A copy of this Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for further

necessary action at its end.

5. Be consigned to the Records after due completion.

Announced:

(RAJAN GUPTA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-

Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P.

__________

IN THE COURT OF RAJAN GUPTA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

Ref: No. : 20/2014

Shri Roshan Lal s/o Shri Shukru Ram, r/o Village Passal Chauntra, P.O. Chauntra, Tehsil

Joginder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P.

..Petitioner.

Versus

The Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.

..Respondent.

964

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2014@16 T;s"B] 1936

22-02-2014 Present: None for the petitioner.

Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, A.D.A. for the respondent.

The case has been called out repeatedly at intervals before and after the lunch. None has

appeared on behalf of the claimant/petitioner. He is absent despite personal service. It is already

3.00 p.m. Since the petitioner has failed to appear in the Court despite service/knowledge and file

any statement of claim/demand, ld. A.D.A. states at bar that he does not want to file any reply.

2. The above noted facts go to show that the petitioner is not interested to pursue the

matter. Consequently, he is not entitled to any relief. No intentional break in service was provided

to the petitioner by the respondent (as per the reference) during the course of the employment.

Parties to bear their own costs.

3. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

4. A copy of this Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for further

necessary action at its end.

5. Be consigned to the Records after due completion.

Announced:

(RAJAN GUPTA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-

Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P.

__________

IN THE COURT OF RAJAN GUPTA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

Ref: No. : 22/2014

Shri Pradhan Singh s/o Shri Jatt Ram, r/o Village Rihru, P.O. Basona, Tehsil Joginder

Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P.

..Petitioner.

Versus

The Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.

..Respondent.

22-02-2014 Present: None for the petitioner.

Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, A.D.A. for the respondent.

The case has been called out repeatedly at intervals before and after the lunch. None has

appeared on behalf of the claimant/petitioner. He is absent despite personal service. It is already

3.00 p.m. Since the petitioner has failed to appear in the Court despite service/knowledge and file

any statement of claim/demand, ld. A.D.A. states at bar that he does not want to file any reply.

2. The above noted facts go to show that the petitioner is not interested to pursue the

matter. Consequently, he is not entitled to any relief. No intentional break in service was provided

to the petitioner by the respondent (as per the reference) during the course of the employment.

Parties to bear their own costs.

965

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2014@16 T;s"B] 1936

3. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

4. A copy of this Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for further

necessary action at its end.

5. Be consigned to the Records after due completion.

Announced:

(RAJAN GUPTA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-

Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P.

__________

IN THE COURT OF RAJAN GUPTA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

Ref: No. : 23/2014

Smt. Kanta Devi w/o Shri Jagdish Chand, r/o V.P.O. Chauntra, Tehsil Joginder Nagar,

Distt. Mandi, H.P.

.. Petitioner.

Versus

The Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.

.. Respondent.

22-02-2014 Present: None for the petitioner.

Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, A.D.A. for the respondent.

The case has been called out repeatedly at intervals before and after the lunch. None has

appeared on behalf of the claimant/petitioner. She is absent despite personal service. It is already

3.00 p.m. Since the petitioner has failed to appear in the Court despite service/knowledge and file

any statement of claim/demand, ld. A.D.A. states at bar that he does not want to file any reply.

2. The above noted facts go to show that the petitioner is not interested to pursue the

matter. Consequently, she is not entitled to any relief. No intentional break in service was provided

to the petitioner by the respondent (as per the reference) during the course of the employment.

Parties to bear their own costs.

3. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

4. A copy of this Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for further

necessary action at its end.

5. Be consigned to the Records after due completion.

Announced:

(RAJAN GUPTA),

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-

Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P.

966

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2014@16 T;s"B] 1936

IN THE COURT OF RAJAN GUPTA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

Ref No. : 161/2013

Date of Institution : 20.9.2013

Date of Decision : 24.02.2014

Smt. Phula Devi w/o Shri Pawan Kumar, r/o Village Phalun Bhatta, P.O. Jalpehar, Tehsil

Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.

..Petitioner.

Versus

The Executive Engineer, B&R Division, H.P.P.W.D., Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.

..Respondent.

Reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. N.L. Kaundal, AR

: Sh. Vijay Kaundal, Adv.

For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, ADA

AWARD

The below given reference has been received from the appropriate Government for

adjudication:

“Whether time to time termination of the services of Smt. Phula Devi, W/O Shri Pawan

Kumar, R/O Village Phalun Bhatta, P.O. Jalpehar, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi,

H.P. during 2001-2007 by the Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD, Joginder Nagar,

District Mandi, H.P. without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, is legal and justified? If not what amount back wages, seniority, past service benefits

and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employer?”

2. The case of the petitioner (as set out in the statement of claim/demand) is that her

services were engaged by the B&R Department as a daily wager on muster roll basis in the month

of March, 2000. She worked under the Assistant Engineer, HPPWD Sub Division, Joginder Nagar.

No appointment order/letter was issued in her name by the respondent. The latter used to engage

her services for 15 to 20 days every month instead of the full month. Fictional breaks for 10-15

days each month were given by the respondent up-to the month of September, 2007. Thereafter, as

per the instructions issued by the Principal Secretary (PW) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh

per letter dated 14.9.2007, her services were continuously engaged by the respondent. The

respondent gave her the artificial breaks from the year 2000 to 30.9.2007. The persons who were

working with her (petitioner) or joined the service after her were not given any intentional break by

the respondent. At the time of giving the artificial/fictional breaks, the principle of ‘last come first

go’ was not followed by the respondent. The persons junior to her namely Shri Rajinder Singh and

Sh. Sumer Singh etc. worked with the respondent/department without any break. The period of

artificial breaks is required to be counted as continuous service for the purpose of the regularization

of her (petitioner’s) services. The persons junior to her have been regularized by the respondent

earlier to her against the policy of the State. A similar case titled as Suresh Kumar vs. The

Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Division Baijnath bearing reference No.23/2010 has already been

decided in favour of the workman by this Court per Award dated 28.11.2011. She (petitioner)

completed eight years of continuous service on 30.4.2008 and 10 years of continuous service on

967

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2014@16 T;s"B] 1936

30.04.2010. As per the policy framed/approved in Mool Raj Upadhaya’s case, she is entitled to the

regularization of her services as work-charge beldar w.e.f. 1st May, 2008 in the pay scale of

Rs.4910-10680/- with all other perks and allowances. She is still working with the

respondent/department. The act and conduct of the respondent amounts to unfair labour practice. It

is also violative of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947,

‘the Act’ for short).

As such, as is apparent from the prayer clause of the petition/statement of claim, the

petitioner has claimed the following relief(s) in this case:-

“(i) The Hon’ble Court kindly be set aside the illegal period of breaks from…… to

30.9.2007 with cost and directed to respondent to pay the wages to the applicant for

breaks periods and count the said period in continuity of service of the applicant for the

purpose of her regularization.

(ii) The Hon’ble Court again directed to respondent to granted the work charge status to

the applicant after completion of 8 years continuous service w.e.f. 1.5.2008 in the pay

scale of rupees 4900-10680/- and further directed to respondent to pay the arrear to the

applicant w.e.f. 1.5.2008 to onwards along with 12% interest from the amount due to

till the date of realization the amount.

(iii) The Hon’ble Court further directed to respondent to fix the applicant in beldar

seniority list of work charges/regular above to the junior.

(iv) Any other relief deemed fit may kindly be granted in the favour of applicant”.

3. On notice, the respondent appeared. He filed detailed reply controverting the

averments made in the petition/statement of claim. Preliminary objections have been taken to the

effect that the claim petition is not maintainable since no legal or fundamental right of the petitioner

has been infringed. The petition is hit by the vice of delay and laches. The State of Himachal

Pradesh and the Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, HPPWD, Joginder Nagar are

necessary parties to the petition. They have not been arrayed as parties/respondents because of

which the petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties.

On merits, it has been owned that the services of the petitioner were engaged as a daily

wager on muster roll basis in the month of February, 2000. However, it has been pleaded that the

petitioner was employed by the Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, HPPWD,

Joginder Nagar. His (respondent’s) office was created in the month of January, 2004 vide

notification dated 9th December, 2003. The office started functioning w.e.f. 2nd January, 2004.

After the creation of his (respondent’s) office, the petitioner and some other workmen were

transferred to the newly created Division from the National Highway Division, Joginder Nagar.

The claim of the petitioner prior to 01.1.2004 pertains to the office of the Executive Engineer,

National Highway Division, Joginder Nagar, who is not a party to the case. No fictional breaks

were granted to the petitioner at any point of time. The services of the petitioner were engaged as

per the requirement of the work and availability of the funds. As and when the services of the

petitioner were engaged in accordance with her verbal requests from time to time, she was duly

made aware regarding the availability of the work. Continuous work for the entire month was

provided to the petitioner. She used to report for duty intermittently as per her convenience. The

workmen whose names have been disclosed by the petitioner, worked in continuity. Their services

have been regularized as per the seniority and policy of the State. The policy framed in Mool Raj

Upadhaya’s case is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. As per Mool Raj Upadhaya’s case

one time benefit was given to the employees who had either completed 10 years of continuous

968

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2014@16 T;s"B] 1936

service with 240 days in each calendar year as on 31.12.1993 or the employees who had rendered

one or more year of service but had not completed 10 years of service up-to 31.12.1993. The

services of the petitioner were rightly regularized as per the policy of the State. He (respondent) did

not indulge in any unfair labour practice. No provision of the Act has been flouted. The petition is

meritless.

In these circumstances, the respondent prays that the petition in hand be dismissed.

4. No rejoinder has been filed.

5. Per order dated 29.11.2013, following issues were framed:

1. Whether time to time termination of the services/giving breaks in service to the

petitioner by the respondent during the years 2001 to 2007 is/was illegal and

unjustified as alleged?

..OPP.

2. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form?

..OPR.

3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties as alleged. If

so, its effect?

..OPR.

4. Whether the petition is hit by the vice of delay and laches as alleged?

..OPR.

5. Relief.

6. I have heard the ld. counsel/AR for the parties and have gone through the case file.

7. For the reasons detailed here under, my findings on the above issues are as follows:-

Issue No.1 : Yes

Issue No.2 : Not pressed

Issue No.3 : No

Issue No.4 : No

Relief. :

Claim petition allowed in part vide operative portion of the Award.

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

ISSUE NO.1

8. Smt. Phula Devi (petitioner) stepped into the witness box as PW1. In her affidavit Ex.

PW1/A submitted under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, she reiterated on oath the contents of the

petition/statement of claim in its entirety.

In the cross-examination, she denied that as and when the muster roll was issued in her

name, she was duly made aware that because of non-availability of the budget, the work for 10-20

days is being provided to her. She denied that she has instituted a phoney petition.

9. Conversely, Shri B.S. Barwal, Executive Engineer, HPPWD, (B&R) Division,

Joginder Nagar (respondent) testified as RW1. He corroborated on oath the contents of the reply

preferred by him.

In the cross-examination, he admitted that the labourers whose names find mention in Ex.

RW1/D were employed after the engagement of the services of the petitioner and completed 240

days of work earlier to her. He denied that the petitioner never remained absent from her duties. He

969

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2014@16 T;s"B] 1936

admitted that as per the record no notice regarding willful absence from duty was ever served upon

the petitioner.

10. Ex. RW1/A is the copy of a notification dated 9th December, 2003 issued by the

Public Works Department, Govt. of Himachal Pradesh. Vide this notification, National Highway

Division was restructured and a new HPPWD Division was created at Joginder Nagar.

11. Ex. RW1/B is the copy of an office order. It depicts that the newly created office of the

respondent started functioning w.e.f. 2nd January, 2004 (forenoon).

12. Ex. RW1/C is the mandays chart relating to the petitioner.

13. Ex. RW1/D is the mandays chart/year-wise working days details in respect of Shri

Rajinder Singh and 10 other daily wagers working under the respondent.

14. It is the admitted case of the parties that the services of the petitioner were engaged as

a daily wager on muster roll basis. The mandays chart Ex. RW1/C unfolds that the petitioner was

initially employed on 06.1.2000 by the respondent.

15. The mandays chart Ex. RW1/C clarifies that from the month of January, 2001 to the

year 2007 work for the entire month or 240 days was not provided to the petitioner by the

respondent. The muster rolls for 10-20 days in a month were issued in the name of the petitioner. If

the services of the petitioner used to be engaged for 10-20 days every month due to the non-

availability of the budget and work, then why the persons junior to her (whose names figure in the

list Ex. RW1/D) were provided the work for 240 days or more by the respondent? The reasons to

that effect being obscure go to show that the respondent is not speaking the truth. The act and

conduct of the respondent unfolds that either he was resorting to favoritism or acting in a partisan

manner with one set of the workmen so as to deprive them the status and privileges of permanent

workmen entitling them to the regularization of their services as per the policy of the State.

Browsing of the record highlights the glaring discrimination perpetuated by the respondent.

16. The action of the respondent in not issuing intentionally the muster roll for the entire

month to the workman due to no fault of the workman is nothing but unfair labour practice. The

petitioner is to be presumed in continuous and uninterrupted service of the respondent from the

month of January, 2001 to the year 2007 as per the provisions contained in Section 25-B of the Act.

The breaks given by the respondent being intentional will have no effect on the seniority and

continuity in service of the workman (petitioner).

17. This issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

ISSUE NO. 2

18. Not pressed.

ISSUE NO. 3

19. From the statement made by the respondent (RW1), it can be gathered that two B&R

Sub Divisions i.e. Joginder Nagar and Ladbharol were working under National Highway Division,

Joginder Nagar. From the very beginning, the petitioner is serving HPPWD (B&R) Sub Division,

Joginder Nagar, which admittedly came under the control of the respondent with the creation of

new B&R Division at Joginder Nagar in the year 2004. Therefore, it can be safely said that from

day one, the petitioner is an employee of B&R Division and not the National Highway Division at

Joginder Nagar. Due to these reasons, National Highway Division, Joginder Nagar is not a

necessary party to the petition.

970

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2014@16 T;s"B] 1936

20. This issue is also decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

ISSUE NO. 4

21. Reference No. 41/2001 (RBT No.403/04) titled as Sh. Hari Singh vs. The Secretary,

Irrigation & Public Health, Government of H.P., Shimla and two others was disposed of by this

Court/Tribunal per Award dated 13.6.2006 by one of my ld. Predecessors. Issue No.4 was framed

to the effect as to “Whether the reference is barred by time?” Such issue was decided against the

claimant/petitioner Shri Hari Singh. It was held that since the claim petition has been preferred by

the petitioner at a belated stage, the industrial dispute raised by him has become stale because of

which the reference is not maintainable. Consequently, the claim petition was dismissed and the

reference was answered against the workman/petitioner. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

Award dated 13.6.2006 rendered by this Court, the petitioner Shri Hari Singh preferred CWP

No.4050 of 2009-H before the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. Such CWP was

allowed by the Hon’ble High Court vide judgment dated 09.10.2012. While setting aside the Award

dated 13.6.2006 passed by this Court/Tribunal, it was observed by the Hon’ble High Court that “the

reference had to be answered by the Labour Court and the question of the reference having been

made belatedly could have been considered at the time of giving the relief”. Similar view has been

expressed by a Division Bench of our Hon’ble High Court in H.P. State Forest Corporation versus

Presiding Judge, Labour Court, Shimla and another, 2012 (133) FLR 684. Taking into account the

observations made in these rulings, it cannot be said that the petition is hit by the vice of delay and

laches.

22. In the petition, the petitioner has no where pleaded that during the break period, she

was without any work. While testifying in the Court as PW1, the petitioner has given her age as 46

years. It is well known that a young lady like the petitioner will not sit at home during the period

she is/was out of the service. The petitioner has failed to discharge the initial onus that during the

period of her forced idleness, she is/was not gainfully employed. For these reasons, she is not

entitled to the wages for break period.

23. This issue too is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

RELIEF (ISSUE NO. 5)

24. As a sequel to my findings on the various issues, the instant claim petition succeeds in

part and the same is partly allowed. The breaks given by the respondent to the petitioner up-to the

year 2007 being artificial/fictional are held to be wrong and illegal. She (petitioner) shall be entitled

to the seniority and continuity in service from the month of January, 2001 except back wages. The

respondent is also directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of her services as

per the policies framed by the State Government from time to time. It is made clear that if the

services of any person junior to the petitioner have already been regularized, she (petitioner) shall

be entitled to the regularization from the date/month of the regularization of the services of her

junior(s). Parties to bear their own costs.

25. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

26. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the

official gazette.

27. File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.

Announced in the open Court today this 24th day of February, 2014.

(RAJAN GUPTA),

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P.

971

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2014@16 T;s"B] 1936

IN THE COURT OF RAJAN GUPTA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

Ref No. : 128/2013

Date of Institution : 24.08.2013

Date of Decision : 24.02.2014

Shri Kartar Singh s/o Shri Niranjan Singh, r/o Village Mangail, P.O. Khaddar, Tehsil

Joginder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P.

..Petitioner.

Versus

Executive Engineer, B&R Division H.P.P.W.D., Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.

..Respondent.

Reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner :

Sh. Suresh Sharma, Adv.

For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, ADA

AWARD

The below given reference has been received from the appropriate Government for

adjudication:

“Whether time to time termination of the services of Shri Kartar Singh S/O Shri Niranjan

Singh, R/O Village Mangail, P.O. Khaddar, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.

w.e.f.03.07.1999 to 31.08.2007 by the Executive Engineer, B&R Division H.P.P.W.D.,

Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. without complying with the provisions of the

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

seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the

above employer?”

2. The case of the petitioner (as set out in the statement of claim/demand) is that his

services were engaged as a daily rated beldar on 03.7.1999 by the HPPWD in the National

Highway Division, Joginder Nagar. Later on, the workmen of the said Division including him

(petitioner) were put under the control of the newly created HPPWD B&R Division, Joginder

Nagar. The new Division came into existence in the month of January, 2004. From the date of his

initial engagement up-to 31.8.2007, the respondent/department gave him the fictional breaks from

time to time. Muster roll for 15 days in a month used to be issued in his (petitioner’s) name despite

the fact that the work for the entire month was available with the respondent/department. The

persons junior to him (petitioner) working in the same category were allowed to complete 240 days

of work in a calendar year by the respondent/department. The names of the juniors are S/Sh. Dalip

Singh and Gautam Singh etc. The juniors have also been regularized. The respondent stopped

granting the artificial breaks to him (petitioner) w.e.f. 01.9.2007. After that, he was allowed to

complete 240 days of work in each and every calendar year of his employment. The fictional

breaks were given by the respondent arbitrarily. He has been discriminated. The work for which his

services were engaged is of permanent nature and is still continuing. From 03.07.1999 to

31.8.2007, he requested the respondent time and again to stop giving him the fictional breaks, but

in vain. During the break period, he remained without work and could not get the employment

anywhere else despite the best efforts. He is entitled to the seniority for the break period. This

Court/Tribunal has already decided a similar matter i.e. Reference No.110/2006 titled as General

972

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2014@16 T;s"B] 1936

Secretary vs. Executive Engineer, HPPWD per Award dated 02.11.2010 in favour of the workmen.

The act and conduct of the respondent is illegal and unjustified. It is also violative of Sections 25-F,

25-G, 25-H and other provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947, ‘the Act’ for

short).

As such, as is apparent from the prayer clause of the petition/statement of claim, the

petitioner has claimed the following relief(s) in this case:-

“the claim petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and he be given the benefit of

seniority for the period of fictional breaks alongwith back wages, he be regularized with

other consequential service benefits or any other relief, to which this Hon’ble Court deems

the petitioner fit under the facts and circumstances stated supra may also be granted in

favour of the petitioner and against the respondent HPPWD and the reference may kindly be

allowed in favour of the petitioner with cost in the interest of justice and justice be done”.

3. On notice, the respondent appeared. He filed detailed reply controverting the

averments made in the petition/statement of claim. Preliminary objections have been taken to the

effect that the claim petition is not maintainable since no legal or fundamental right of the petitioner

has been infringed. The State of H.P. and the Executive Engineer, National Highway Division,

HPPWD, Joginder Nagar are necessary parties to the case. They have not been joined as parties to

the lis. The petition is hit by the vice of delay and laches.

On merits, it has been owned that the services of the petitioner were engaged as a daily

wager by the Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, HPPWD, Joginder Nagar in the

month of May, 1999. His (respondent’s) office was created in the month of January, 2004 vide

notification dated 9th December, 2003 issued by the Government. The office started functioning

w.e.f. 2nd January, 2004. After creation of his (respondent’s) office, the petitioner and some other

workmen were transferred from the HPPWD, National Highway Division, Joginder Nagar to the

HPPWD (B&R) Division, Joginder Nagar. The claim of the petitioner prior to 01.1.2004 relates to

the office of the Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, HPPWD, Joginder Nagar, who

has not been joined as a party to the case. No fictional breaks were provided to the petitioner as

alleged. The work was made available to the petitioner on his verbal requests from time to time as

per the availability of the funds and requirement. At the time of engaging the services of the

petitioner, he was duly informed that he has been engaged for a particular period of 10-15 or 20

days and his (respondent’s) office is not in a position to provide the work to him (petitioner) for the

whole month. The mandays chart of the petitioner is annexure R-II. Almost all the workmen, whose

names have been disclosed by the petitioner, are senior to him. The petitioner has not been

discriminated. At the time of the disengagement of the workmen due to non availability of the work

and the funds, the principle of ‘last come first go’ was strictly followed. The petitioner is not

entitled to any protection under the Act. Now he is working continuously with him (respondent).

The instant industrial dispute has been raised by the petitioner at a belated stage. He did not lodge

any protest earlier at any point of time. During the period, the petitioner remained out of the job, he

was gainfully employed.

In these circumstances, the respondent prays that the petition in hand being meritless be

dismissed.

4. No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner.

5. Per order dated 06.12.2013, following issues were struck:

1. Whether time to time termination of the services/giving breaks in service to the

petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. 03.07.1999 to 31.08.2007 is/was illegal and

unjustified as alleged?

..OPP.

2. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form?

..OPR.

973

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2014@16 T;s"B] 1936

3. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties as

alleged. If so, its effect?

..OPR.

4. Whether the petition is hit by the vice of delay and laches as alleged?

..OPR.

5. Relief.

6. I have heard the ld. counsel/AR for the parties and have gone through the case file.

7. For the reasons detailed here under, my findings on the above issues are as follows:-

Issue No.1 : Yes

Issue No.2 : Not pressed

Issue No.3 : No

Issue No.4 : No

Relief. :

Claim petition allowed in part vide operative portion of the Award.

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

ISSUE NO.1

8. Shri Kartar Singh (petitioner) stepped into the witness box as PW1. In his affidavit Ex.

PW1/A submitted under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, he reiterated on oath the contents of the

petition/statement of claim in its entirety.

In the cross-examination, he admitted that his services were initially engaged in HPPWD,

National Highway Division, Joginder Nagar. HPPWD (B&R) Division, Joginder Nagar was created

in the month of January, 2004. He denied that at the time of issuance of the muster rolls, it was

conveyed to him and the other workmen that because of the non availability of the budget, their

services are being engaged for 10-15 or 20 days only. He denied that at the time of receiving the

payment or issuance of the muster rolls, he did not raise any objection regarding providing the

artificial breaks. He also denied that the instant industrial dispute has been raised by him at a

belated stage.

9. Conversely, Shri B.S. Barwal, Executive Engineer, HPPWD, (B&R) Division,

Joginder Nagar (respondent) testified as RW1. He corroborated on oath the contents of the reply

filed by him.

In the cross-examination, he admitted that two Sub Divisions i.e. Joginder Nagar (B&R)

and Ladbharol (B&R) were under National Highway Division, Joginder Nagar. The budget for

HPPWD Sub Division (B&R), Lad Bharol was provided by the Himachal Pradesh Government.

The budget for the execution of the works carried out by the National Highway Division was

provided by the Government of India. He admitted that from the very beginning, the petitioner

served in B&R Sub Division, Lad Bharol and is serving the said Sub Division even now. He

admitted that the workmen whose names find mention in Ex. RW1/D were engaged after the

employment of the petitioner and they completed 240 days of work earlier to him. No notice

regarding absence from duties was ever given to the petitioner. He admitted that the persons junior

to the petitioner have already been regularized. The nature of work being done by the petitioner and

his juniors was the same. He denied that he has given a phoney statement.

10. Ex. RW1/A is the copy of a notification dated 9th December, 2003 issued by the

Public Works Department, Govt. of Himachal Pradesh. It depicts that the National Highways set up

was restructured.

974

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2014@16 T;s"B] 1936

11. Ex. RW1/B is the copy of an office order dated 2nd January, 2004 issued by the

respondent. It unfolds that the newly created B&R Division, HPPWD, Joginder Nagar became

functional w.e.f. 2nd January, 2004 (forenoon).

12. Ex. RW1/C is the mandays chart relating to the petitioner.

13. Ex. RW1/D is the mandays chart/year-wise working days details in respect of the daily

waged beldars namely Smt. Geeta Devi and nine others.

14. It is the admitted case of the parties that the services of the petitioner were engaged as

a daily waged beldar and he is working continuously. The mandays chart Ex. RW1/C unfolds that

the petitioner was initially employed in the month of May, 1999. The respondent has not pleaded a

single word to the effect that the initial appointment of the petitioner was made against the Rules or

in violation of the prescribed procedure.

15. It is an admitted fact that the services of the petitioner were initially engaged by the

Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, HPPWD, Joginder Nagar. From the statement

made by the respondent (RW1), it can be gathered that two B&R Sub Divisions i.e. Joginder Nagar

and Ladbharol were working under National Highway Division, Joginder Nagar. From the very

beginning, the petitioner is serving HPPWD (B&R) Sub Division, Lad Bharol, which admittedly

came under the control of the respondent with the creation of new B&R Division at Joginder Nagar

in the year 2004. Therefore, it can be safely said that from day one, the petitioner is an employee of

B&R Division and not the National Highway Division at Joginder Nagar.

16. The mandays chart Ex. RW1/C clarifies that from the month of May, 1999 to

31.8.2007, work for the entire month was not provided to the petitioner by the respondent. The

muster rolls for 10-20 days in a month were issued in the name of the petitioner. If the services of

the petitioner used to be engaged for 10-20 days every month due to the non availability of the

budget and work, then why the persons junior to him (whose names figure in the list Ex. RW1/D)

were provided the work for 240 days or more by the respondent? The reasons to that effect being

obscure go to show that the respondent is not speaking the truth. The act and conduct of the

respondent goes to show that either he was resorting to favoritism or acting in a partisan manner

with one set of the workmen so as to deprive them the status and privileges of permanent workmen

entitling them to the regularization of their services as per the policy of the State. Browsing of the

record highlights the glaring discrimination perpetuated by the respondent.

17. The action of the respondent in not issuing intentionally the muster roll for the entire

month to the workman due to no fault of the workman is nothing but unfair labour practice. The

petitioner is to be presumed in continuous and uninterrupted service of the respondent from the

month of July, 1999 to 31st August, 2007 as per the provisions contained in Section 25-B of the

Act. The breaks given by the respondent being intentional will have no effect on the seniority and

continuity in service of the workman (petitioner).

18. This issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

ISSUE NO. 2

19. Not pressed.

ISSUE NO. 3

20. Taking into account my findings on issue No.1 above, it is held that the State of H.P.

and Executive Engineer, HPPWD, National Highway Division, Joginder Nagar are not necessary

parties to the case. They may be proper parties.

975

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2014@16 T;s"B] 1936

21. This issue too is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

ISSUE NO. 4

22. Reference No. 41/2001 (RBT No.403/04) titled as Sh. Hari Singh vs. The Secretary,