1192

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 twu] 2014@26 T;s"B] 1936

AND WHEREAS accordingly, the Commission notified the draft Regulations to amend the

Himachal Pradesh Electricity Supply Code, 2009 published in the Rajpatra, Himachal Pradesh,

dated 28th April, 2014, as required under sub-section (3) of section 181 of the Electricity Act,

2003, rule 3 of the Electricity (Procedure for Previous Publication) Rules, 2005. A notice for

inviting suggestions and objections from the public and the stakeholders was published in the

leading newspapers viz. “The Tribune” (English) and “Amar Ujala” (Hindi) on 27th April, 2014

and also hosted it on the Commission’s website. The Commission also circulated the draft

Regulations to the Supply Code Review Panel, constituted under para 1.3 of the Himachal Pradesh

Electricity Supply Code, 2009, for their consideration and recommendations thereon;

AND WHEREAS in response to above public notice, the Commission received response

from various stakeholders vis-a-vis the comments/recommendations of the Supply Code Review

Panel, which have been duly considered by the Commission while finalizing these Regulations.

NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 50 and clause(x) of

subsection (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, the

Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission hereby amends the Himachal Pradesh

Electricity Supply Code, 2009 as under :--

The Himachal Pradesh Electricity Supply Code

(First Amendment) Regulations, 2014

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

Pradesh Electricity Supply Code (First Amendment) Regulations, 2014.

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

Rajpatra, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Insertion of para 1.1.4.1.– In the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Supply Code, 2009

(hereinafter referred as, “the said Code”), the following para 1.1.4.1 shall be inserted; namely:--

“1.1.4.1 Where any regulations, referred to in the Code, undergo any amendment,

modification or reenactment, after commencement of the Code, the references in the Code

to such regulations shall, unless a different intention appears, be construed as references to

the provisions so amended, modified or re-enacted.”

3. Amendment in para 2.1.6.- In para 2.6.1 of the said Code,--

(a) in the heading, for the words “Standard Supply Voltage”, the words “Standard Supply

Voltage/Supply Voltage” shall be substituted; and

(b) for the existing sub-para 2.1.6.1, the following sub-paras 2.16.1(A), 2.1.6.1(B) and

2.1.6.1(C) shall be substituted; namely:--

“2.1.6.1(A) The standard supply voltage shall mean the standard voltage at which

electricity shall be given to the consumer through a common or dedicated or joint

dedicated feeder without payment of any lower voltage supply surcharge(LVSS).

Depending upon the connected load(kW or MW), contract demand (kVA or MVA),

nature of load and existence of a voltage (volts/kV) and phase in the relevant

distribution system, the standard supply voltage for a consumer shall be as provided in

clauses (a) and (b) of this sub-para and sub-para 2.1.6.1(C)-

1193

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 twu] 2014@26 T;s"B] 1936

(a) The maximum limits of connected load (kW or MW) and contract demand (kVA

or MVA) for the supply of power at a voltage, shall be as under—

Sr.

No.

Standard Supply Voltage

Maximum

Connected

Load

Maximum

Contract

Demand

Single phase 230 volts or three

phase 415 volts or 2.2 kV; (for

supplies not involving special

category loads).

50 kW

50 kVA

Three phase 11 kV or 22 kV;

(for supplies not involving

special category loads).

3 MW

2.2 MVA

Three phase 33 kV

12 MW

10 MVA

Three phase 66 kV

14 MW

12 MVA

Three phase 132 kV or 220 kV

No limits

Provided that where special category loads are involved, the standard supply voltage shall

be 11 kV or 22 kV, as may exist on the relevant distribution system, if –

(i)

the total connected load does not exceed 1 MW, irrespective of special category loads;

(ii) the total quantum of connected load in respect of special category loads does not

exceed 750 kW within the overall limit of total connected load upto 3 MW and total

contract demand upto 2.2 MVA:

Provided further that, if neither of the limits given in the first proviso, in relation to

supplies involving special category loads, are adhered to, the standard supply voltage shall

be 33 kV or the appropriate higher voltage in accordance with the limits specified in this

clause:

Provided further that where a consumer having connected load of not more than 50 kW

is already getting supply at LT voltage immediately before commencement of the Himachal

Pradesh Electricity Supply Code (First Amendment) Regulations, 2014, he shall continue to

be covered under a LT standard voltage (i.e. single phase 230 volts or three phase 415 volts)

irrespective of contract demand already sanctioned in his favour, so long as he does not

further extend his connected load or contract demand beyond the specified limits of 50 kW

or 50 kVA respectively:

Provided further that where a consumer is getting supply at a voltage higher than the

standard supply voltage as per the said specified limits, he shall continue to get supply at

such higher voltage without any rebate for higher voltage supply.

(b) Where the connected load or contract demand exceeds the relevant ceiling limit

specified in clause (a), the appropriate higher voltage at which both such limits can be

adhered to, shall be considered as standard supply voltage and there shall be no minimum

limits for supply of power at a particular voltage.

2.1.6.1(B) Where the consumer seeks supply of power at a voltage lower than the standard

supply voltage as per sub-para 2.1.6.1(A), the licensee shall supply power at such lower voltage

subject to the maximum limits of connected load and contract demand as specified in this sub-para;

1194

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 twu] 2014@26 T;s"B] 1936

payment of lower voltage supply surcharge (LVSS) by the consumer at the rates given in the

relevant tariff order applicable from time to time; and other conditions, as may be relevant,

specified in this subpara or in sub-para 2.1.6.1(C) or elsewhere in this Code :--

Sr.

No.

Supply

Voltage

Description

Maximum

Connected

Load

Maximum

Contract

Demand

(for

supplies

not

involving special

category loads)

(a) If 22 kV or 33 kV voltage

level exists in the relevant

distribution system.

5 MW

4 MVA

(b) If 22 kV or 33 kV voltage

level does not exist in the

relevant distribution system.

6 MW

5 MVA

(for

supplies

not

involving special

category loads)

(a) If 33 kV voltage level exists

in the relevant distribution

system.

6 MW

5 MVA

(b) If 33 kV voltage level does

not exist in the relevant

distribution system.

7 MW

5.5 MVA

33 kV

(a) If 66 kV voltage level exists

in the relevant distribution

system.

15 MW

12 MVA

(b) If 66 kV voltage level does

not exist in the relevant

distribution system.

18 MW

14 MVA

66 kV

(a) Through

common

dedicated or joint dedicated

feeder

18 MW

14 MVA

(b) Through a dedicated or joint

dedicated feeder

30 MW

24 MVA

Provided that all such supplies, excepting the same at Sr. No.4(a), shall be given

through dedicated or joint dedicated feeders only and that in case of Sr. No. 4(a) the supply

shall be given through a common or dedicated or joint dedicated feeder:

Provided further that in case of supply involving special category loads, the same

shall be given at 11 kV or 22 kV subject to further conditions that the total connected load

in respect of the special category loads does not exceed 1.5 MW within the total connected

load upto 3 MW and contract demand upto 2.2 MVA and that the supply is to be given

through a dedicated feeder or a joint dedicated feeder emanating from EHV sub-station:

Provided further that if the conditions given in second proviso, in relation to the

supplies involving special category loads, are not adhered to, the supply shall be given at 33

kV or at appropriate higher voltage depending on the total connected load and contract

demand:

Provided further that the provisions of this sub-para, shall be further subject to the

following condition:--

(i) that the voltage regulation limits shall have to be adhered to while deciding the supply

arrangements;

1195

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 twu] 2014@26 T;s"B] 1936

(ii) that in case of special category loads and other such loads which can cause

disturbances in the power distribution system, the consumer shall provide suitable

protection equipments as per the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to

Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 and other prudent practices to

adequately insulate the distribution system from the disturbance caused by such loads;

(iii) that the consumer already getting supply at higher voltage as compared to the standard

supply voltage or the limits given in this sub-para, shall not be entitled to any higher

voltage supply rebate; and

(iv) that in cases of joint dedicated feeder, the limits of maximum connected load and

maximum contract demand as per this subpara shall be applicable for the summation of

the connected loads and contract demands of both the consumers.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-para,--

(a) “dedicated feeder” means the electric supply line emanating from the sub-station

of the licensee through which electricity is, or is intended to be, supplied to a

single consumer; and

(b) “joint dedicated feeder” means the electric supply line emanating from the sub-

station of the licensee through which electricity is, or is intended to be, supplied to

two consumers.

2.1.6.1(C) (i) Where the contract demand has not been applied for or sanctioned, the limit

corresponding to 90% of the connected load (in kW) converted into kVA by adopting power factor

of 0.9 shall be deemed as the contract demand.

(ii) The supply shall be made at the minimum voltage level at which all the relevant limits

and conditions are adhered to. However, if the consumer opts for supply of power at a voltage

higher than the standard supply voltage, the licensee shall allow the same excepting the cases in

which there may be some constraint.

(iii) Where the connected load or contract demand is to be enhanced, the standard supply

voltage under sub-para 2.1.6.1 (A) and the supply voltage under sub-para 2.1.6.1 (B) shall be

redetermined as per the provisions under the said paras based on enhanced connected load and

enhanced contract demand.

Explanation.-- For the purposes of sub-paras 2.1.6.1(A) and 2.1.6.1(B), “special category

loads” means furnace loads and mass induction heating loads and shall also include any other load

as the Commission may, after taking into consideration electrical characteristics and its impact on

the distribution system, by order, declare it to be a special category load.”

4. Amendment of para 3.1.1.—In para 3.1.1 of the said Code, for the words “The

Application and Agreement Form will be available at the designated offices of the licensee on

payment of fee as fixed by the Commission in the Schedule of General and Service Charges in the

tariff order. A specimen of the Application and Agreement form will also be available on the

website of the licensee and can be downloaded, if required, and in such a case, the fee will be paid

by the applicant at the time of its filing”, the words “The Application and Agreement Form will be

available free of cost at the designated offices of the licensee and on its website” shall be

substituted.

1196

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 twu] 2014@26 T;s"B] 1936

5. Amendment of para 3.1.2.—At the end of para 3.1.2. of the said Code, the following

para 3.1.2 shall be inserted; namely:--

“3.1.2 The consumer may, if he considers it expedient to do so, make online application to

the licensee and deliver by post or by hand delivery the hard copy of the original

Application and Agreement Form, alongwith the enlisted documents, to the licensee at its

designated office.”

6. Insertion of para 3.1.4.1.—In the said Code, the following para 3.1.4.1 shall be

inserted; namely:--

“3.1.4.1 Where an Application and Agreement Form is submitted online under para 3.1.2,

the demand notice, mentioned in para 3.1.4, shall be served electronically i.e. through e-

mail/SMS and its hard copy shall also be sent to the applicant/consumer by post or by hand

delivery.”

7. Amendment of para 3.2.— For the existing para 3.2 of the said Code, the following

para shall be substituted; namely:--

“3.2 Power Availability Certificate.–

3.2.1 Where the contract demand for a new or additional load exceeds 100 kVA, the

applicant will submit the feasibility clearance i.e. Power Availability Certificate (PAC)

along with the Application and Agreement Form which will be available free of cost at the

designated offices of the licensee and on its website.

3.2.2 The consumer shall apply for the grant of Power Availability Certificate, on payment

of advance cost share towards infrastructural developmental charges, calculated @ Rs.1000

per kVA of the contract demand applied for.

3.2.3 Where the consumer submits online application, and makes online payment of

advance cost share, for grant of Power Availability Certificate under para 3.2.2, he shall

also submit hard copy of the application and proof of the payment made, to the licensee at

its designated office, either by post or by hand delivery.

3.2.4 The licensee shall grant the Power Availability Certificate within thirty days of the

receipt of application, or within such period as may be extended, with the approval of the

Commission, and the licensee shall also convey such approval to the online

consumer/applicant electronically i.e. through e-mail/SMS apart from sending him the hard

copy of the said approval by post or by hand delivery.

3.2.5 The Power Availability Certificate mentioned in para 3.2.3 shall be valid for a period

of three years or for such shorter period as may be mutually agreed upon by the licensee and

the applicant:

Provided that the validity period may be extended, from time to time, as may be

mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the licensee.

3.2.6 The applicant may, after grant of Power Availability Certificate mentioned in para

3.2.4, submit the application for supply of electricity to the premises and the licensee shall

adjust the amount received as the advance cost share towards the amount recoverable under

1197

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 twu] 2014@26 T;s"B] 1936

the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Recovery of Expenditure for

Supply of Electricity) Regulations, 2012:

Provided that if the applicant submits application for a contract demand lesser than the

contract demand for which Power Availability Certificate has been issued, the amount of

advance cost share shall be adjusted as under—

(a)

if the applicant intends to avail the

balance contract demand at a

subsequent

stage

during

the

validity period of the Power

Availability Certificate.

On pro-rata basis.

(b)

if the applicant expresses his

intention not to take supply for the

balance contract demand for which

Power Availability Certificate was

issued.

Full amount of the advance cost share

deposited by the applicant shall be adjusted

after deducting therefrom 20% of the

proportionate amount deposited as advance

cost share in respect of such contract demand

as is not to be availed.

3.2.7 Where the applicant who has been granted the Power Availability Certificate (PAC)

fails to submit the application(s) or declines to take supply for the full contract demand for

which Power Availability Certificate was granted, within the validity period, the advance

cost share, not adjusted as per para 3.2.6, shall be refunded after deducting therefrom 20%

of the proportionate amount of the advance cost share deposited in respect of the contract

demand which is not to be availed.

Illustration.—If the Power Availability Certificate is issued for 3000 kVA contract

demand, but application is submitted or supply is taken only for 2000 kVA contract

demand, 20% of the advance cost share pertaining to 1000 kVA contract demand shall be

deducted.

3.2.8 The refund of the refundable amount of advance cost share as per para 3.2.7 shall be

made within 30 days from the expiry of validity period or from an earlier date on which

such applicant expresses his intention not to take supply for full or part of the contract

demand for which the Power Availability Certificate was issued and requests for refund of

such amount.”

8. Substitution of para 3.8.— For existing sub-paras 3.8 of the said Code, the following

para 3.8 shall be substituted; namely:--

“3.8 Refund of initial security and charges.–

3.8.1 On withdrawal of application for new connection/additional load, whether permanent

or temporary, the amount received from the applicant on account of the initial security

deposit under the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Security Deposit)

Regulations, 2005 and on account of the charges/costs under the Himachal Pradesh

Electricity Regulatory Commission (Recovery of Expenditure) Regulations, 2012 shall be

refunded to the applicant after deducting therefrom:–

(i) 10% of the initial security amount deposited by the applicant; and

(ii) the actual expenditure computed as per regulation 9 of the Himachal Pradesh

Electricity Regulatory Commission (Recovery of Expenditure) Regulations, 2012, by

duly taking into account the deductions to be made out of all the relevant components

1198

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 twu] 2014@26 T;s"B] 1936

such as infrastructure development charges, cost of service line and other exclusive

works, as detailed in the said regulations:

Provided that in case of withdrawal of application for temporary connection, no

deduction shall be made on account of clause (i) if no extension of distribution mains

or commissioning of a new sub-station is involved.

3.8.2 Where an agreement for supply of electricity is terminated as per the Conditions of

Supply or provisions of this Code, the licensee will refund the initial/additional security,

after making adjustments for the amounts outstanding against the consumer, within one

month of the date of termination of the agreement as per the Himachal Pradesh Electricity

Regulatory Commission (Security Deposit) Regulations, 2005.”

9. Substitution of para 3.9.– For the existing para 3.9 of the said Code, the following para

3.9 shall be substituted; namely:--

“3.9 Delay to take supply or avail contract demand.–

In case of supplies involving two part tariff, where the licensee has completed the work

required for supply of electricity to an applicant, but the applicant is not ready or delays to

receive supply of electricity or does not avail the full contract demand, the licensee shall,

after a notice of sixty days, charge the demand charges on the sanctioned contract demand

at the rates given in the relevant tariff order subject to following limits–

No.

Description

Minimum limit

(i)

For initial six months from the expiry

of notice period or date of release of

connection, whichever is earlier;

Maximum demand actually availed, if

any.

(ii)

For next six months;

Maximum demand actually availed, if

any, or 30% of the total sanctioned

contract demand, whichever is higher.

(iii)

After expiry of the period provided in

item (ii) above;

Maximum demand actually availed, if

any, or 50% of the total sanctioned

contract demand, whichever is higher.

Provided that the minimum limits, as given in items (ii) and (iii), shall not be further

decreased on the account of tariff provisions relating to charging of demand charges for

lesser quantum of demand due to non utilization or temporary reduction of contract

demand.”

10. Insertion of para 3.10.–In the said Code, the following para 3.10 shall be inserted;

namely:--

“3.10 Temporary revision of contract demand.–

The consumers to whom two part tariff is applicable shall be entitled to revise their contract

demand within the total sanctioned contract demand without surrendering their lien of the

total sanctioned contract demand, subject to the following condition–

(a) that the consumer shall not reduce the contract demand to lesser than 50% of the total

sanctioned contract demand subject to a further condition that the contract demand

1199

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 twu] 2014@26 T;s"B] 1936

shall not be reduced below the lowest limit of contract demand as per the tariff

category (or any subcategory thereof) applicable to him;

(b) that the consumer shall not be entitled to revise the contract demand more than twice a

year subject to the condition that the time gap between two successive revisions shall

not be less than 3 months;

revising the contract demand under this mechanism. Even though the consumer shall

not be required to obtain any sanction from the licensee for change in contract demand

under this mechanism, he, so as to avoid the disputes, shall ensure that the notice(s) for

such revision are duly served by him upon the licensee through registered post or

through courier service or is delivered by hand against signed receipt therefor;

(d) that in cases where the contract demand is reduced under this mechanism, such

reduced contract demand shall be applicable for billing purposes; and

(e) that in cases where the consumer gets his contract demand reduced permanently, the

limit under clause (a) shall be considered with respect to such reduced contract

demand, but such reduction shall not be considered to have been made under this

mechanism and the time gap of 3 months as per clause (b) shall be reckoned from the

date from which the demand was last revised under this mechanism.

Illustration.–If a consumer who is having sanctioned contract demand of 10 MVA

temporarily revises the contract demand to 6 MVA w.e.f. 01.08.2014 under this

mechanism but gets his sanctioned contract demand permanently reduced to 8 MVA

w.e.f. 01.09.2014, he shall have to pay charges based on 6 MVA contract demand till

31.10.2014 (i.e. till the expiry of 3 months period from the date at which the contract

demand was last revised i.e. from 01.08.2014). However, if the contract demand is to

be reduced permanently to lesser than 6 MVA (say 4 MVA as on 01.09.2014), the

demand charges would have been based on a contract demand of 4 MVA during the

period upto 31.10.2014.”

11. Amendment of para 5.2.– In para 5.2 of the said Code,–

(a) for the Explanation to sub-para 5.2.1, the following sub-paras 5.2.1.1 and 5.2.1.2 shall

be substituted; namely:–

“5.2.1.1 Monthly billing cycle shall be applicable in urban areas including industrial areas,

District headquarters, Municipal Corporation area, Municipal Council areas, Nagar

Panchayat areas, Special Area Development Authority areas, and for the other areas, except

for tribal and difficult areas as notified by Government of Himachal Pradesh under the

policy for transfer of employees, the billing cycle shall be bi-monthly. In case of the tribal

and difficult areas the billing cycle shall be bi-monthly, except for the winter months for

which the billing cycle shall not be of more than 4 months.

5.2.1.2 Where billing cycle is of more than one month, the consumer shall have option to

pay, monthly or periodic charges, on average or estimated consumption charges basis or any

other basis without waiting for bills to be issued. Such amount will be treated as advance

and adjusted in the regular bills to be issued subsequently.”;

(b) at the end of para 5.2.5, the following sentence shall be added; namely:–

1200

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 twu] 2014@26 T;s"B] 1936

“However in case any amount of the bill is disputed by the consumer, such disputed amount

as well as the late payment surcharge thereon shall also be reflected, and continue to be

reflected, separately in the ledgers, till such time such amount remains unpaid/unsettled, so

that total updated quantum of such disputed amount is readily available. Such details shall

be made available to the consumer on request.”; and

“However, the licensee shall, for delivery/intimation of bills adopt fastest, cost

effective, reliable and assured mode such as electronic mode like e-mail and SMS.”

12. Amendment of para 5.3.- In para 5.3 of the said Code,–

(a) in the beginning of para 5.3.1, the following sentence shall be added; namely:–

“The consumer shall be liable to pay electricity charges for the month on the first day

after the consumption period.”; and

(b) at the end, the following sub-para 5.3.8 shall be inserted; namely:--

“5.3.8 The part payment of the bill shall, with the prior approval of the licensee, be

accepted subject to–

(i) the compliance of the terms and conditions, if any, subject to which the

acceptance of the part payment is permitted;

(ii) the late payment surcharge shall be payable on the outstanding amount of the bill;

and

(iii) such payment shall be deemed to be without prejudice to the licensee’s right to

disconnect the supply to the consumer for nonpayment, unless the licensee

specifically undertakes not to initiate any action to disconnect the supply for non-

payment of such outstanding amount for certain period.”

13. Insertion of para 6.1.1.– At the end of para 6.1.1 of the said Code, the following shall

be inserted; namely:—

“However increase in the connected load, without permission from the licensee, shall not be

considered as unauthorized use of electricity under section 126 of the Act, if –

(i) there is no change in applicable tariff category, or sub-category thereof, as a result of

increase in connected load; and

(ii) the actual demand (kVA) does not exceed the maximum limit arrived at by converting

the sanctioned connected load (kW) into kVA, based on an assumed power factor of

0.9, by more than 10 kVA:

Illustration.– if the sanctioned connected load of the consumer is 360kW and actual

demand is 410 kVA or less it shall not be considered as unauthorized use of electricity

under the section 126 of the Act even if the sanctioned contact demand is less than 410

kVA, so long as the conditions under other clauses are adhered to; and

(iii) there is no usage of electricity through a tampered meter; and

1201

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 twu] 2014@26 T;s"B] 1936

(iv) the electricity is used only for the purpose for which the same was authorized; and

(v) the electricity is used only for the premises or the areas for which the supply of

electricity is authorized; and

(vi) the increase in connected load does not exceed the limit computed as under–

(a) 10 kW in case where the sanctioned connected load is upto 100 kW; and

(b) 10% of the sanctioned connected load subject to a maximum of 200 kW, in case

where the sanctioned connected load is more than 100 kW:

Provided that where the extension of connected load comes to the notice of the

licensee, irrespective of the fact, whether or not, such extension is considered to be

unauthorized use of supply under section 126 of the Act, it shall, apart from taking any

other steps as may be necessary, give an option to the consumer to either get such

extension(s) regularized by completing the formalities or to remove the extension(s) of

the connected load. The licensee shall be entitled to disconnect the supply if the

consumer does not take any steps in this direction even after service of a notice on him

by the licensee. However, the licensee may disconnect the supply temporarily even

without a notice if it reasonably believes that continuation of supply is likely to result

in loss of human or animal life or injury to a human being or any animal or damage to

property.”

14. Insertion in para 7.1.1.– In the said Code, at the end of clause (h) under para 7.1.1,

the following proviso shall be inserted; namely:--

“Provided that the disconnection of supply under clause (h) shall be made after prior

intimation to the consumer.”

15. Insertion in para 7.1.2.–In the said Code, after existing second proviso to para 7.1.2,

the following third proviso shall be added; namely:--

“Provided further that in respect of the period during which the supply remains

disconnected temporarily for any of the aforementioned reasons, the demand charges as per

the tariff order shall be charged only for 10% of the total sanctionedcontract demand. In

case the defaulting consumer permanently surrenders a part of his sanctioned contract

demand during this period, the demand charges shall be levied for 10% of the balance

contract demand.”

16. Amendment of ANNEXURE-A.– At the end of para (1) of the ANNEXURE-A to the

said Code, the following clause (d) shall be inserted; namely :--

“(d) Where the applicable Schedule of Tariff provides for the rates in respect of the

violation charges, the assessment shall be made by taking such rates into account. The

relevant charges as per the tariff order applicable, from time to time, such as contract

demand violation charges, shall continue to be applicable even if the violations, if any, do

not constitute unauthorized use of electricity under section 126 of the Act.”

By order of the Commission

Sd/-

Secretary.

1202

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 twu] 2014@26 T;s"B] 1936

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SHIMLA, DISTRICT SHIMLA, (H.P.)

NOTIFICATION

Dated:......................

No. FDS-SML-7-8/04.—In supression of all previous notification and in exercise of the

powers vested in me under clause 3(1),4(a)(b)(c), 9(a)(i) (ii)(iii) and 9(b) of the Kerosene Oil

(Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order, 1993, and clause 3(i)(c),9(a) and 9(b) of

the H.P. Hoarding & Profiteering Prevention Order,1977, I, Dinesh Malhotra IAS, Distt. Collector,

Shimla, do hereby renotify the route chart for the distribution of SKO to the fair price

shops/kerosene oil retail outlets duly authorised in the distt. under the H.P. Specified Articles

(Regulation of Distribution) Order, 2003 as under:—

S. No Name

K/oil

Retailers

attached

with

K/oil

wholesalers

Consume

Without

Gas

Num-

ber of

SBC

Tem-

porary

Total Alloted

Quantity

Retail

Sale

Rate

Swedashi Enterprises, Dhalli

As fixed by the

Distt.

Collector vide

Notification

No.FDS-SML-

7-8/04-9901-

10000

dated

30-11-13

Seema Devi Rahighat

285

131

416

1500

CMP Society, Sandhu

220

200

420

1000

Kapil Chandel, Matiana

282

136

418

1500

Bhawani

General

Store,

Matiana

110

194

304

1000

Abhimanu Shyam, Shilaru

125

188

313

1500

Rikshit Kumar, Sandhu

250

150

400

1500

Gian Sharma, Shilaru

115

141

256

1420

Shilaroo CAS, Shilaroo

116

160

1000

Parveen Vashisht, Narkanda

188

261

880

10. Kotgarh

CMP

Society,

Thanedhar

123

101

224

880

11. Lathi CAS, Kumarsain

131

215

880

12. Mellan CAS, Mellan

103

137

240

880

13. Mohan Lal Verma, Madhawni

131

660

14. Dinesh Kumar, Bithal

192

111

303

1500

15. Dalan CAS, Dalan

145

107

272

880

16. Kirti CAS, Kirti

440

17. Dharmender Mehta, Sainj

440

18. Diwan Chand & Bros., Kangal

165

221

660

19. Tikam Dass, Sainj

440

20. Shiwan CAS, Shiwan

178

257

880

21. Liaq Ram, Baragaon

110

200

660

22. Dhaneshwari Coop Cons.Store

Bhareli

127

219

660

23. Anjana Verma, Kui

147

236

660

24. Oddi FG Society, Darog *

160

25. Harganag

Coop.

Store,

Khunipanoli

440

26. Shalat CAS, Oddi *

440

1203

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 twu] 2014@26 T;s"B] 1936

27. Vipin Kumar, Baha

116

440

28. Chaman Lal, Nankhari

420

880

29. Punan Coop. Store, Punan

101

154

880

30. Mangal Singh, Chedi

181

292

880

31. The

Jahoo

Raik

CAS,

Kholighat

191

255

880

32. Joginder Joshi, Thaili Chakhti

178

115

293

1200

33. CAS, Nankhari

456

400

34. Joginder Lal, Sunni

143

660

35. Paro Provision Store, Sunni

192

257

660

36. Mahinder Daily Needs, Sunni

163

175

338

1200

37.

Hem Chand Bihari Lal, Palyar

145

880

38.

Narayan Dass, Gumma

295

267

562

1800

39.

Dhani Ram, Jaisi

144

180

324

1000

40.

Bhim

Singh

Sons,

Durgapur

138

660

41.

Kamal Jeet, Jubbar *

42.

Joginder Thakur, Jalog

100

188

660

43.

FPS, Thachi

109

1000

44.

HPSCSC, Pujarli

880

45.

Vijay CMP Soci Bachunch

Rohru

167

199

366

660

46.

Kiarkigarh

Society,

Jaghothinala

121

660

47.

Vijay CMP Soci Bachunch at

Machoti

140

220

440

48.

Devi Ram, Dhalli

133

226

1000

49.

Amar Store, Dhalli

112

880

50.

Baldian

CMP

Society,

Baldian *

130

125

263

440

51.

Aman Sood, Mashobra

380

462

1500

52.

Keonthal CMP, Kufri

154

155

880

53.

Chamyana

CMP

Society,

Kamalanagar

154

180

1500

54.

Karoli CMP, Koti

469

227

696

1800

55.

Kuldeep Kumar, Dublu *

56.

Shilpa Kumari, Junga

440

57.

Surinder Verma, Mehli

442

484

3500

58.

S.C.Store, Kamlanagar

135

148

1800

59.

Kumar Bros., Kufri

880

60.

Suman Kishore, Alampur

127

880

61.

HPSCSC, Sawra

164

127

291

1200

62.

HPSCSC, Patsari

191

201

392

880

63.

Devta Mahasu Coop. Store,

Samra

660

64.

Rudra CMP Society, Badshal

125

660

65.

CMP, Deoli

440

1204

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 twu] 2014@26 T;s"B] 1936

66.

Dogra Valley CMP, Tikkar

109

192

880

67.

HPSCSC,Tikkar

880

68.

HPSCSC,Melthi

880

69.

HPSCSC, Mandhol

113

120

233

880

70.

HPSCSC, Sheelghat

880

71.

Rupal Sood, Sanjauli

269

369

1200

72.

Narvada Devi, Panthaghati

234

299

1700

73.

Pawan Kumar, Rajhana

133

660

74.

Rita Thakur, Panthaghati

138

319

1200

75.

Rattan Chand, Shanhan

130

180

1000

76.

Vinod Kumar, Shahnan

230

270

1000

77.

Partap Singh, Fagu

262

188

450

1500

78.

Sansar Chand, Rohru *

420

72000

Rekha Oil Company, Chopal

CMP Society, Kuthar

350

266

616

1500

Parveen Sood, Deha

153

193

880

Chaman Lal Naveen Kumar,

Lelupul

194

332

526

1420

Rai Singh Prem Singh, Deha

119

201

880

Shiv Ram, Naina

230

301

1000

Bhagat Ram, Maipul

145

165

310

880

Beli Ram Laxman Singh,

Deha

191

288

880

CMP Society, Deori Khaneti

272

104

376

1180

Tehsil Union, Chuni, Kiari

188

211

880

10.

Bal Krishan, Kiari

111

327

438

880

11.

Saraswati CAS, Dakhal

880

12.

Vikram Bragta, Tehtoli

107

162

660

13.

CAS, Bakhol

880

14.

HPSCSC,Pulbahal

128

211

339

1000

15.

HPSCSC,Baghi, (Chopal )

280

178

458

2000

16.

HPSCSC,Jhikanipul

124

158

320

1000

17.

HPSCSC,Bharanu

313

395

1000

18.

HPSCSC,Nerwa

281

317

598

1500

19.

CMP Soc Bhathinalla

163

128

1000

20.

HPSCSC,Mashrah

233

115

348

880

21.

HPSCSC, Chopal

511

211

803

2000

22.

Salim Shekh, Dwada

164

194

880

23.

Shiwalik Consumer Store,

Minda

172

100

272

880

24.

CMP Society, Antrawali

377

439

880

25.

HPSCSC,Maraog

135

147

282

880

26.

HPSCSC,Sarain

113

200

880

27.

HPSCSC,Kupvi

230

433

663

2000

28.

CMP, Mahasu

880

1205

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 twu] 2014@26 T;s"B] 1936

29.

Kashavdeen, Churubag *

30.

Suresh Kumar, Hulli

1000

31.

Chet Ram Chhaila

130

182

312

1000

32.

Yogeshwar Dutt, Mohari

301

237

538

2500

33.

Hardev Sharma, Chhaila

348

442

790

3000

34.

Kamla Sharma, Theog

185

321

506

1200

35.

Sohan Verma, Theog

130

470

600

1500

36.

Sheela Sharma, Theog

202

133

335

1180

37.

Sanjeev Kumar, Gumma

1500

38.

The Parala Harijan Coop

Soc Sainj (Theog )

119

162

281

660

44000

Krishna Coal Company, Bus Stand, Shimla

Ramesh Soni, Badhal

200

293

2000

Hari Om Dutt Nagar *

Hemant Sharma, Dutt Nagar

241

273

1200

Shahdhar

Coop.

Cons.

Store, Shahdhar

138

163

880

Anil Kumar, Tayawal

188

221

880

CAS, Sarahan

183

150

335

880

Sanjay Kumar, Chuhabag

318

384

2000

Rampur

Tehsil

Union,

Rampur

662

737

5500

Ranvir Singh, Chuhabag

145

115

260

1000

10.

Vikesh Chauhan, Chuhabag

127

660

11.

CAS, Sarpara at Sikaseri

880

12.

CAS, Nirth *

400

13.

Murat Singh, Jhakri

193

290

1500

14.

Hari Chand, Jhakri

215

342

1520

15.

Lachhu Ram, Jhakri

200

242

1500

16.

Ramesh Chand, Padamnagar

156

254

1200

17.

Ramesh Chand Nirsu *

18.

Keshav Ram, Dhenda

290

315

605

2600

19.

Madan Lal, Jubbarhatti

223

111

334

1500

20.

Babu Ram, Rouri

120

155

275

1500

21.

STU, Branch Dhami

267

243

510

1200

22.

Sohan Singh, Panesh

200

164

364

1500

23.

Rampuri CAS,Rampuri

138

153

291

1200

24.

Virender Kumar, Ghroag

245

310

1500

25.

Om Parkash, Ghanahatti

379

414

1540

26.

Sunita Malhotra, Badehari

105

660

27.

Ram Sawroop, Nabha

660

28.

Bittu, Krishnanagar

660

29.

Naresh Chand, Nabha

127

660

30.

Ashok Sood, Kaithu

660

31.

Sushil Kumar, Krishnanagar

143

660

1206

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 twu] 2014@26 T;s"B] 1936

32.

Des Raj & Sons, Ganj Bazar

251

201

532

4000

33.

Dhiraj

Kumar,

Motor

Barrier

123

141

264

1500

44000

Jagdamba Oil Company, Motor Barrier, Shimla

Roshan Lal Soni Sarahan

273

292

880

Kewal Ram, Racholi

673

767

4000

Prem Chand, Dobi

121

156

660

Sunder Singh, Dofda

178

253

880

Satpal, Rawni

130

177

1000

Mohan Lal, Bonda

160

240

1200

Rajni

Bala,

Ganvi

(Panchgaon)

195

197

1000

Bhupinder Kumar, Kiar *

CAS, Kinnu

125

100

305

1000

10.

Vidya Chand, Bathara

185

254

1000

11.

Sher Singh Soni, Sarahan

117

142

880

12.

Salig Ram, Kaley

121

201

880

13.

Kalu Ram, Gaura

163

189

440

14.

Anil Kumar, Badawali

130

440

15.

Coop.

Consumer

Store,

Narayan

124

179

660

16.

Laxmi Dutt Vishwa Mitre,

Nogli

165

204

880

17.

Subhash Sharma, Jhakri

111

660

18.

Tirath Ram, Khaneri

137

193

1200

19.

Mela Ram, Taklech

156

198

880

20.

Karam

Chand

Kamlesh

Kumar, Gharatnala*

21.

Ashok Kumar, Nanan

440

22.

Satish

Provision

Store,Lower Totu

150

133

283

880

23.

Vikram Thakur, Shoghi

440

24.

Prem

Lal

Sharma,

Vijaynagar, Totu

106

167

660

25.

Sant

Ram

Sharma,

Shivnagar, Totu

660

26.

Anita Thapa, Vijaynagar,

Totu

107

196

880

27.

Hari Krishan Bhasin, Jutogh

119

300

28.

Vinod Sood, Bharari

101

880

29.

Sanjeev Sood, Bharari

132

880

30.

Anita Kumari, Lakkar Bazar

111

740

31.

Satish Kumar, Boileauganj *

32.

Babita Sharma, Cheog

251

112

363

880

33.

Sanjeev

Sood,

Ghora

Chowki.

181

880

34.

Thakur

General

Store,

100

700

1207

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 twu] 2014@26 T;s"B] 1936

Sangti

35.

Durga

Provision

Store,

Sangti *

36.

Neelam Sharma Tara Devi

346

416

2800

37.

Sanjay Thakur, Summerhill

331

197

528

2000

38.

Vijay CMP Society, Dhar

Jubbal

101

162

660

39.

Govind Singh, Rohru

385

122

507

2000

40.

Meera Chauhan, Rohru

180

250

880

41.

Kamal Machhan, Rohru

107

157

264

1000

42.

Goverdhan Singh, Rohru

151

660

43.

Jagdish Chand, Kutara

163

880

44.

Prem Lal Chauhan, Rohru

660

45.

Anil Kumar, Rohru

440

46.

Prem Lal Tegta Rohru

175

660

47.

Laturia Mull Roop Lal,

Nangal Devi

201

305

506

900

48.

Krishna Coal Co Shimla (against Permits )

700

49.

CMP, Kansakoti

120

186

660

50.

Rachpal Singh, Kansakoti

123

190

900

51.

Satya Devi, Jhakri

100

440

44000

Gainda Mull Hem Raj Shimla

Kailash Kaushal, Tutikandi

103

127

250

880

Lalit Kumar, New Shimla

124

193

317

880

Ram Pyari, Chotta Shimla

121

214

1500

Devinder Chauhan, Kaithu

204

178

382

2800

Krishna Coal Co., Panchayat

Bhawan

288

380

2000

Raj Kumar Sood, Kaithu

465

2800

Sanjeev Thakur,

Ruldubhatha

114

212

1500

Krishan Lal, Chakkar

164

201

365

1600

Parmod Sood, Victory

Tunnel *

10.

Pushpa Devi, Lakkar Bazar

104

112

260

2000

11.

Subhash Chand, Ganj Bazar

296

214

581

4000

12.

Vikas Jaswal, Phagli

113

137

1000

13.

Pankaj

Kumar,

Myth,

Kaithu *

14.

Baldev Singh, Dudhli *

15.

Ram Saran, Poabo

140

147

287

660

16.

Yash Pal Kelti

130

222

660

17.

Om Parkash, Kanena *

220

18.

Pushpa Sharma, Dummi

120

660

19.

Kalhanj CAS, Tara Devi

169

1500

20.

Kalhanj CAS, Shoghi

148

180

1500

1208

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 twu] 2014@26 T;s"B] 1936

21.

Surinder Thakur, Chamrog

141

880

22.

Rajat Kohli, Tutikandi

305

289

594

2800

23.

Kapil Sharma, New Shimla

126

103

229

660

24.

HPSCSC,Chotta Shimla

180

211

391

880

25.

HPSCSC,Kasumpati

880

26.

Parmod Sethi, Kotkhai

165

244

1500

27.

HPSCSC, Baghi, Kotkhai

101

193

294

660

28.

The Ubha Desh Society,

Kalbog

136

660

29.

The Ubha Desh Society,

Chamain

660

30.

Krishan Lal, Chauri Bhaghal

160

200

660

31.

CMP Society, Rawlakiar

147

159

306

660

32.

CMP, Ratnari

172

105

277

1000

33.

Tehsil Union, Kotkhai

1500

34.

Gautam Sharma, Rohru

100

177

880

35.

Chaman Lal, Dochi *

440

36.

Satish Kumar, Anti *

440

37.

HPSCSC, Kharapathar

161

363

524

1000

38.

Jubbal CMP Society, Jubbal

215

349

564

1500

39.

HPSCSC, Chirgaon

1500

40.

Bir Chand, Rohru *

41.

Prem Chand, Samala

136

880

42.

Narender Kumar, Samolipul

660

43.

Poonam Sharma, Rohru

160

200

660

44.

Kooinal

CMP

Soc

Ramnagar

480

48000

Terms & Conditions:—

Every Wholesaler and Fair Price Shop Holder/ Kerosene Oil Retailer under TPDS,

authorised under the provision of (HP Specified Articles Regulation of Distribution) Order,

2003, will strictly adhere to the provisions of relevant Control Orders, issued by the Central

& State Govt. under the Essential Commodities Act,1955 (10 of 1955) and instruction.

No delivery of Kerosene Oil (Blue Dyed) under TPDS will be made by the Wholesaler to

the authorised retailer before the sun rise & after sun set. The authorised retailer shall also

not issue the Kerosoene Oil to the registered consumer card holder after closing time of the

Fair Price Shop and on holiday declared by the concerned Fair Price Shop.

The Wholesaler will add or deduct the increase or decrease in the procurement rate in the

wholesale rate with the prior intimation to the office of District Controller, Food, Civil

Supplies & Consumers Affairs, Shimla district Shimla, HP. Similary, the retailer will also

add or deduct any increase or decrease in the wholesale respectively. Every wholesaler, Fair

Price Shop holder and authorised dealer will ensure submission of required returns well in

time as already.

Epveecriyfierda.tion card holder or holder of any other authorised document issued by the

competent autho ity will not carry more than the qunatity of blue dyed kerosene oil for

which he is entitled at one time and shall not store quantity more than one and half times to

which he/she is entitled for at one time as per the Govt, Order.

No SKO Wholesaler will deviate from this route chart notification without prior permission

1209

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 twu] 2014@26 T;s"B] 1936

of the District Collector or District Controller FCS&CA Shimla.

The routes allotted to wholesale dealers shall be changeable after every three months.

By order,

Sd/-

District Controller,

Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs,

Shimla, Distt. Shimla.

________

LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-2, the 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

277/2009

S/Shri Barahmi Devi V/s E.E.HPPWD,Dharampur.

1/3/2014

67/2011

Babbal Singh V/s -do-

3/3/2014

244/2013

Dehar Project Worker Union V/S M/s Saini Techna.

4/3/2014

141/2011

Saran Pat V/S Pradhan Gram Panchyat.

6/3/2014

151/2011

Beli Ram V/s -do-

6/3/2014

386/2012

Raj Kumar V/s E.E. I&PH Dehra.

6/3/2014

387/2012

Mohinder Singh V/s -do-

6/3/2014

44/2013

Madhav Ram V/s D.F.O. Suket.

11-03-2014

46/2013

Abhilashu V/s -do-

11-03-2014

192/2013

Govind Ram V/s E.E. HPPWD, J/Nagar.

14-03-2013

51/2014

Pradeep Kumar V/s -do-

14-03-2014

52/2014

Jai Dev V/s -do-

14-03-2014

53/2014

Balbir Singh V/s -do-

14-03-2014

54/2014

Nardu Devi V/s -do-

14-03-2014

55/2014

Sanichari Devi V/s -do-

14-03-2014

68/2014

Rumiya Ram V/s -do-

14-03-2014

145/2013

Suresh Kumar V/s -do-

14-03-2014

169/2013

Sanju Kumar V/s -do-

14-03-2014

170/2013

Raghubir Singh V/s -do-

14-03-2014

112/2014

Kalansha Devi V/S Director Ayurveda.

15-03-2014

114/2014

Asha Devi V/s -do-

15-03-2014

115/2014

Raj Kumar V/s D.F.O. Karsog

15-03-2014

56/2014

Hem Singh V/s E.E.HPPWD, J/Nagar.

18-03-2014

321/2012

Roshan Lal V/s D.F.O. Suket.

18-03-2014

198/2013

Mohender Pal V/s E.E. HPPWD, J/Nagar.

19-03-2014

1210

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 twu] 2014@26 T;s"B] 1936

71/2014

Sarwan Singh V/s E.O. Municipal Council Sh. Naina

Devi Ji.

20-03-2014

207/2010

Pradhan/Sachiv, HPKVV V/s Registrar CSK, HPKVV.

20-03-2014

155/2013

HP Surksha Karamchari Union V/s Chairman/MD

HPEx.Service Men.

21-03-2014

132/2011

Jamuna Devi V/s Headmaster, Govt. Primary School.

21-03-2014

18/2013

Mast Ram V/s D.F.O. Suket.

26-03-2014

38/2013

Yashwant Singh V/s D.F.O. Suket.

28-03-2014

29/2014

Asha Devi V/s E.E. HPPWD, J/Nagar.

5-3-2014

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. : 277/2009

Date of Institution : 07.03.2009

Date of Decision : 01.03.2014

Smt. Barahami Devi w/o Shri Tek Chand, r/o Village Ganteryalu, P.O. Baroti, Tehsil

Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P.

..Petitioner.

Versus

The Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division, Dharampur, 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 retrenchment of services of Smt. Barahami Devi W/O Shri Tek Chand by the

Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Dharampur, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, w.e.f.

08.07.2005 without following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and

justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and

compensation the above Ex-Worker is entitled to from the above Employer?”

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

services were engaged as a daily wager on the muster rolls by the respondent on 07.01.1999. She

uninterruptedly worked as such up-to 07.7.2005. On 08.7.2005, her services were disengaged by

1211

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 twu] 2014@26 T;s"B] 1936

the respondent by issuing three months notice and paying the retrenchment compensation as

envisaged under Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the Act’ for short). She had

completed 240 days of work in each and every calendar year of her employment as well as in a

block of 12 calendar months preceding the date of her illegal retrenchment i.e. 08.7.2005. Before

the termination of her services, the respondent has not provided any seniority list of the daily

wagers working under him (respondent). The persons junior to her (petitioner) namely S/Sh.

Subhash Chand, Shashi Kant and Bidhi Chand etc. have been retained in service by the respondent.

Shri Dharampal s/o Sh. Sarwan Ram was appointed as a daily waged beldar by the respondent in

the month of November, 1998, whereas, the services of Sh. Shashi Kant were engaged by the

respondent in the year 2000. The persons junior to her (petitioner) were not retrenched from service

along-with her. The respondent has not followed the principle of ‘last come first go’. Not only this,

one Smt. Mamta Devi w/o late Shri Hans Raj was appointed by the respondent in the year 2000.

She is/was junior to her (petitioner). Her services were also dispensed with by the respondent w.e.f.

08.7.2005 alongwith her. Smt. Mamta Devi has been re-engaged by the respondent in the year

2007. At the time of her re-engagement, an opportunity of reemployment was not given to her

(petitioner). In the month of September, 2009, 43 retrenched workmen have been re-engaged by the

respondent. At the time of their re-engagement, the principle of ‘last come first go’ has not been

adhered to. Junior retrenched workmen have been re-engaged without providing an opportunity of

re-employment to the seniors. The retrenchment orders dated 02.7.2005 and 04.7.2005 passed by

the respondent have already been set aside by this Court and confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court

of Himachal Pradesh. The respondent has re-employed more than 600 retrenched workmen. They

have also been paid the compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- each. She (petitioner) is

unemployed from the date of her disengagement. The act and conduct of the respondent is illegal

and unjustified. It also contravenes the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act.

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

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

“1. That the Hon’ble Court kindly be set aside the illegal retrenchment order passed by the

respondent dated 02.07.2005/04.07.2005 and directed to respondent to reinstate the services

of applicant with full back wages, seniority, in continuity of service with all consequential

service benefits.

2. The Hon’ble Court further directed to respondent to regularized the services of applicant

on the basis of policy framed by the State Government and on the basis of his seniority fall

in the cadre post.

3. The Hon’ble Court kindly be directed to respondent to pay the 9% interest on back wages

and pay the Rs.5000/- as litigation cost as well as counsel fee. And if any other relief

deemed fit may kindly be granted in the favour of applicant in the interest of justice”.

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

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

effect that the claim petition/reference is not maintainable since other efficacious remedies at the

first instance are available to the petitioner. The petition suffers from the vice of delay and laches.

The petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands. She has suppressed the material facts

from the Court. The petitioner is estopped from filing the claim petition by her act and conduct.

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

wager on the muster roll w.e.f. 07.01.1999 and she worked continuously as such up-to 07.7.2005. It

stands admitted that the services of the petitioner were terminated w.e.f. 08.7.2005 by taking

recourse to the provisions of Section 25-N of the Act. The retrenchment of the daily wagers has

1212

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 twu] 2014@26 T;s"B] 1936

been ordered as per the decision of the Specified Authority-cum-Chief Engineer, Central Zone,

Mandi. Three months notice and retrenchment compensation were given to the petitioner. She was

also afforded an opportunity of being heard before the retrenchment. The fact that some junior daily

wagers are working in Dharampur Division of the HPPWD has been admitted. The juniors are

working due to the nonavailability of the seniority of the workers who were transferred from other

Divisions/Sub Divisions. The retrenchment notices have also been given to the juniors who are

surplus. It stands admitted that the services of Smt. Mamta Devi were retrenched alongwith the

petitioner. She has been reengaged on compassionate grounds as her husband Shri Hans Raj died in

an accident. In the month of September, 2009, 43 retrenched workmen have been re-employed after

obtaining the legal opinion from the Law Department and sanction from the Chief Engineer,

Central Zone, Mandi. Reengagement has been carried out as per the Awards passed by this Court.

The facts that more than 600 retrenched workmen have already been reengaged and paid the

compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- each have not been agitated. The compensation paid to the

petitioner was accepted by her without any protest. The petition is meritless.

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

costs.

No rejoinder has been preferred by the petitioner.

5. Per order dated 07.01.2014, following issues were struck:-

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

08.07.2005 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged?

..OPP.

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

..OPR.

3. Whether the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands as alleged. If

so, its effect?

..OPR.

4. Whether the claim petition is hit by the vice of delay and laches as alleged. If so,

its effect?

..OPR.

5. Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the claim petition by her act and

conduct as alleged. If so, its effect?

..OPR.

6. 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 : Not pressed

Issue No.4 : No

Issue No.5 : Not pressed

Relief. :

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

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

ISSUE NO.1

1213

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 twu] 2014@26 T;s"B] 1936

8. The petitioner Smt. Barahmi Devi 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. She also placed on the record the mandays chart Ex.

PW1/B in respect of the workman Shri Shashi Kant, who is/was junior to her (PW1) and retained in

service by the respondent.

In the cross-examination, she admitted that Dharampur Division of HPPWD was created in

the year 1998. She denied that with the creation of new Division, the labour became surplus. She

admitted that 1087 other workers were removed from service along-with her. She denied that no

person junior to her has been retained in service by the respondent and her services have been

dispensed with in a rightful manner.

9. Conversely, Sh. Anil Sangrai, Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Division Dharampur

(respondent) testified as RW1. He corroborated on oath the contents of the reply filed by him.

In his cross-examination, he admitted that the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days

during the period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of the termination of her services. He

also admitted that Smt. Mamta Devi w/o Shri Hans Raj was engaged as a daily waged beldar. Her

services were terminated w.e.f. 08.7.2005. He admitted that Smt. Mamta Devi was re-engaged as

daily waged beldar in the year 2008. Self stated, she was re-employed on compassionate grounds as

her husband Shri Hans Raj died in harness. He cannot say that Shri Hans Raj (husband of Smt.

Mamta Devi) expired in the year 1999. He denied that Smt. Mamta Devi was junior to the

petitioner. Before re-engaging her services as a daily wager no opportunity of re-employment was

afforded to the petitioner. He refuted that at the time of the termination of the services of the

petitioner, the work and funds were available.

10. Ex. RW1/A is the copy of the order dated 17.6.2005 passed by the Specified Authority

i.e. Chief Engineer, Central Zone, Mandi. As per this order, the Specified Authority gave the

permission to retrench a number of workmen.

11. Ex. RW1/B is the seniority list of daily waged beldars in respect of the office of the

respondent who have completed eight years of service up-to 31.3.2008.

12. Ex. RW1/C is the copy of the termination notice given to Smt. Mamta Devi by the

respondent.

13. Ex. RW1/D is the copy of the termination notice dated 04.7.2005 served upon the

petitioner by the respondent. It unfolds that the services of the petitioner were ordered to be

disengaged w.e.f. 08.7.2005.

14. Ex. RW1/E is the mandays chart relating to the petitioner.

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

a daily wager on the muster roll in the month of January, 1999 and she worked as such

continuously up-to 07.7.2005. Admittedly, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the

respondent w.e.f. 08.7.2005 by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 25-N of the Act, after

issuing the notice dated 04.7.2005, the copy of which is Ex. RW1/D. The termination notice Ex.

RW1/D was issued by the respondent pursuant to the order dated 17.6.2005 (Ex. RW1/A) passed

by the Specified Authority-cum-Chief Engineer, HPPWD, Central Zone, Mandi. This order has

already been held to be bad in the eyes of law by this Court and the Hon’ble High Court of

Himachal Pradesh.

16. The respondent in his reply has admitted that the persons junior to the petitioner are

serving under him. The said fact also finds support from the seniority list/year-wise mandays chart

Ex. PW1/B pertaining to the workman namely Shri Shashi Kant s/o Shri Bihari Lal. Browsing of

1214

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 twu] 2014@26 T;s"B] 1936

Ex.PW1/B reveals that services of Shri Shashi Kant were initially engaged by the respondent in the

year 2000 i.e. after the appointment of the petitioner. Shri Shashi Kant is junior to the petitioner and

his services were not terminated by the respondent alongwith the petitioner on 08.7.2005. This

shows that the respondent failed to abide by the principle of ‘last come first go’. His action is thus

violative of Section 25-G of the Act.

17. Not only this, the seniority list Ex. RW1/B reveals that Smt. Mamta Devi (serial

No.648) was initially engaged by the respondent in the year 2000. She is/was junior to the

petitioner, who was appointed in the year 1999. Her services were also dispensed with after issuing

the notice Ex. RW1/C along-with the petitioner w.e.f. 08.7.2005. Smt. Mamta Devi was reengaged

as a daily wager in the year 2008. At the time of re-engaging her services, an opportunity of re-

employment was not afforded to the petitioner. Therefore, it can be safely said that the respondent

has also flouted the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act. The termination of the services of the

petitioner by the respondent is illegal and unjustified.

18. Admittedly, more than 1000 workmen were removed from service by the respondent.

Majority of them raised the industrial dispute. The claim petitions preferred by them have been

allowed by this Court. The Awards pronounced by this Court have been affirmed by the Hon’ble

High Court of Himachal Pradesh. While ordering the reinstatement of the workmen, the Hon’ble

High Court has also directed the respondent to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/- to each and

every workman in lieu of the back wages and compensation etc. In order to avoid discrimination

amongst the workmen, the petitioner is also entitled to these reliefs.

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

ISSUES No. 2, 3 and 5

20. Not pressed.

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. It does not appeal to a reasonable mind that a person like the petitioner will 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 was not gainfully employed.

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

1215

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 twu] 2014@26 T;s"B] 1936

RELIEF (ISSUE NO.6)

24. As a sequel to my findings on the issues No.1 and 4, the instant claim petition succeeds

in part and the same is partly allowed. The retrenchment of the petitioner is set aside and quashed.

The respondent is directed to re-engage the petitioner forthwith. She shall be entitled to the

seniority and continuity in service from the date of her illegal termination i.e. 08.7.2005. The

respondent is also directed to pay lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only)

to the petitioner in lieu of the back wages and compensation etc. 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 1st day of March, 2014.

(RAJAN GUPTA),

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P.

________

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

CUMINDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

Ref. No. : 67/2011

Date of Institution : 18.05.2011

Date of Decision : 03.03.2014

Shri Babbal Singh s/o Shri Thakar Dass, r/o Village Kharoon, P.O. Sidhpur, Tehsil

Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi, H.P.

..Petitioner.

Versus

The Executive Engineer, HPPWD (B&R) Division, Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P.

..Respondent.

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

For the Petitioner

: Sh. Suresh Kumar 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 retrenchment of services of Sh. Babbal Singh S/O Sh. Thakar Dass, by the

Executive Engineer, HPPWD (B&R) Division, Dharampur, Tehsil Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi,

w.e.f. 08.7.2005 vide notice dated-04.7.2005, without following the provisions of the

1216

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 twu] 2014@26 T;s"B] 1936

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

benefits and relief the above named worker is entitled to from the concerned 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 by the respondent on 01.11.1998. He worked as such up-to

07.7.2005. On 08.7.2005, his services were terminated by the respondent wrongly and illegally. No

seniority list as per law has been prepared by the respondent. The persons junior to him (petitioner)

are still working with the respondent/department and their services have been regularized. The

respondent has failed to adhere to the principle of ‘last come first go’. He (petitioner) was engaged

for doing the work of permanent nature which is still continuing. The Government of Himachal

Pradesh vide notification dated 07.9.1992 conferred the powers of specified authority for the

purpose of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the Act’ for short) upon the Labour

Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh. In other States also, concerned Labour Commissioners are

exercising the powers of the specified authority. In the instant case, the HPPWD in order to

facilitate his (petitioner’s) illegal retrenchment and the retrenchment of the co-workers, conferred

the powers of the specified authority upon the Chief Engineer, Central Zone, Mandi per notification

dated 14.2.2005 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The Chief Engineer directed the

Executive Engineer to retrench him (petitioner) and his co-workers. The Chief Engineer being one

of the interested parties and directly related with his (petitioner’s) employment did not provide

proper opportunity of being heard to him (petitioner). He acted in a biased and discriminatory

manner as well as granted the permission to retrench him (petitioner) and some other workers. The

appointment of the Chief Engineer as specified authority is wrong, illegal and void ab-initio. In the

month of April, 2005, the respondent/department served a notice under Section 25-N of the Act

upon him (petitioner) and the other workers. Civil Writ Petition No. 486/2005 was filed before the

Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh challenging the notification dated 14.2.2005. Reply to the

writ petition was preferred by the respondent. When the civil writ petition came up for hearing

before the Hon’ble High Court, it was observed orally by the Hon’ble Court that such type of

notifications are not sustainable in the eyes of law. The State of Himachal Pradesh then rescinded

the notification dated 14.2.2005 and conferred the powers of the specified authority under Section

25-N of the Act once again upon the Labour Commissioner. The Hon’ble High Court while

disposing of the writ petition directed the competent authority to look into the legal sanctity of

notification dated 14.2.2005 and the permission granted by the Chief Engineer resulting in his

(petitioner’s) retrenchment and the retrenchment of the other workmen. The notification dated

14.2.2005 was issued by the department solely with a view to terminate his (petitioner’s) services.

At the time of his disengagement sufficient work and funds were available with the

respondent/department. He (petitioner) had completed 240 days of work in a block of 12 calendar

months preceding the date of his termination. The act and conduct of the respondent is highly

illegal and unjustified. The same is also violative of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act. From

the date of his disengagement, he is unemployed, having no source of income.

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 petition:

“i. That the notification dated 14/2/2005 bearing No. shram (A) 4-1/2005 may kindly be

declared wrong and illegal and be set-aside.

ii. The permission granted by the specified authority-cum-Chief Engineer, Central Zone

Mandi under section 25(N) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for the retrenchment of

the claimant/applicant may kindly be declared null and void and be set aside and the

retrenchment of Claimant/applicant be declared null and be set aside.

iii. The claimant/applicant may kindly be ordered to be reinstated as daily rated beldar

with full back wages, seniority, regularization and other consequential service benefits

1217

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 twu] 2014@26 T;s"B] 1936

etc. and the present statement of claims may kindly be allowed in favour of the

claimant/applicant 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 raised to the

effect that the reference/claim petition is not maintainable as other efficacious remedies at the first

instance are available to the petitioner. The petition suffers from the vice of delay and laches. The

petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from

the Court. He (petitioner) is estopped from filing the petition by his act and conduct.

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

rated beldar on 01.11.1998 and he worked as such up-to 07.7.2005. He was retrenched from service

w.e.f. 08.7.2005. Three months basic pay in lieu of the notice period and retrenchment

compensation were paid to the petitioner. It stands admitted that some persons junior to the

petitioner are working with him (respondent). The juniors are working due to non availability of the

seniors who were transferred from other Division/Sub Division. The retrenchment notices have also

been served on the junior workers who are surplus. It stands admitted that the specified authority

viz. Chief Engineer, Central Zone, Mandi, had given the permission for retrenchment of the surplus

labour. The notification dated 14.2.2005 was rightly issued by the department to avoid the

litigation. The petitioner has been rightly removed from service. No provision of the Act has been

infringed. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

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

4. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has reiterated the contents of the petition/statement of

claim and refuted the objections put forth by the respondent.

5. Per order dated 28.10.2011, following issues were struck by my ld. Predecessor:--

1. Whether the retrenchment of the petitioner under Section 25-N of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 is illegal and unjustified, as alleged. If so, to what effect?

..OPP.

2. Whether the termination of the petitioner is also violative of the provisions under

Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as alleged. If

so, to what effect?

..OPP.

3. Whether the petition suffers from the vice of delay and laches as alleged. If so, to

what effect?

..OPR.

4. Whether the reference is not maintainable as alleged. If so, to what effect?

..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 : Yes

Issue No.3 : No

Issue No.4 : Not pressed

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

1218

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 twu] 2014@26 T;s"B] 1936

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

ISSUES NO. 1 AND 2

8. Being interlinked and to avoid the repetition, both these issues are taken up together

for discussion and disposal.

9. The petitioner Shri Babbal Singh 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 he worked as a daily waged beldar up-to July,

2005. He also admitted that Dharampur Division of HPPWD was created in the year 1998. He

denied that with the creation of new Division, the labour became surplus. He admitted that his

services alongwith 1087 other workers were dispensed with by the respondent. He denied that no

person junior to him has been retained in service by the respondent. He also denied that the claim

put forth by him is false.

10. Conversely, Sh. Anil Sangrai, Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division, Dharampur

(respondent) testified as RW1. He corroborated on oath the contents of the reply submitted by him.

In the cross-examination, he admitted that the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days

during the period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of termination of his services. He also

admitted that one Smt. Mamta Devi w/o Shri Hans Raj was engaged as a daily waged beldar. Her

services were terminated w.e.f. 08.7.2005. The copy of the termination notice in respect of Smt.

Mamta Devi is Ex. RW1/C. He admitted that Smt. Mamta Devi was re-engaged as a daily waged

beldar in the year 2008. Volunteered, she was re-engaged on compassionate grounds because her

husband (Hans Raj) expired while serving the HPPWD. Before re-engaging Smt. Mamta Devi, no

opportunity of re-employment was afforded to the petitioner. He denied that Smt. Mamta Devi was

junior to the petitioner. He does not know that Shri Hans Raj (husband of Smt. Mamta Devi) died

in the year 1999. He controverted that at the time of termination of the services of the petitioner, the

work and funds were available.

11. Ex. PW1/B is the category-wise seniority list of all the daily waged workers working

under B&R Division, HPPWD, Dharampur as on 07.7.2005.

12. Ex. RW1/A is the copy of the order dated 17.6.2005 passed by the specified authority

i.e. Chief Engineer, Central Zone, Mandi. As per this order, he accorded the permission to retrench

a number of workmen.

13. Ex. RW1/B is the seniority list of daily waged beldars in respect of Dharampur

Division who had completed 8 years of service up-to 31.3.2008.

14. Ex. RW1/D is the copy of the notice dated 02.7.2005 issued by the Executive

Engineer, B&R Division, HPPWD, Dharampur to the petitioner under Section 25-N of the Act

intimating him that his services shall stand terminated w.e.f. 08.7.2005.

15. Ex. RW1/E is the mandays chart relating to the petitioner.

16. It is the admitted case of the respondent that the services of the petitioner were

engaged as a daily rated beldar on 01.11.1998 and he worked as such up-to 07.7.2005. It is also an

admitted fact that the services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondent after issuing a

notice dated 02.7.2005, the copy of which is Ex.RW1/D, w.e.f. 08.7.2005.

1219

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 twu] 2014@26 T;s"B] 1936

17. There is no denial of the fact that Chief Engineer, HPPWD, Central Zone, Mandi was

appointed as a specified authority by the Government and he gave the permission to retrench the

petitioner and other workmen per order dated 17.6.2005, the copy of which is Ex. RW1/A. This

order has already been held to be bad in the eyes of law in a number of Awards passed by this

Court relating to the similarly situated workmen. Those Awards have been affirmed by the Hon’ble

High Court of Himachal Pradesh.

18. From the statement made by the respondent (RW1) coupled with the seniority list

placed on the record, it can be gathered that the persons junior to the petitioner are serving the

respondent/department. Smt. Mamta Devi w/o late Sh. Hans Raj was re-engaged by the respondent

in the year 2008 i.e. after the retrenchment of the petitioner. There is nothing on the record to show

that at the time of re-engaging Smt. Mamta Devi an opportunity of re-employment was given to the

petitioner. The respondent has failed to adhere to the principle of ‘last come first go’. His action

contravenes the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act. The retrenchment of the

petitioner is illegal and unjustified.

19. As already mentioned, several references relating to similarly situated workmen have

already been decided by this Court. The Awards rendered by this Court have been affirmed by the

Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The Hon’ble High Court while holding the retrenchment

to be wrong and illegal has ordered the reinstatement of the workmen. The respondent has also

been directed by the Hon’ble High Court to pay lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/- to each and every

workman in lieu of the back wages and compensation etc. To avoid discrimination amongst the

workmen, the petitioner is also entitled to such relief(s).

20. These issues are decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

ISSUE NO. 3