jkti=] fgekpy izns'k
fgekpy izns'k jkT; 'kklu }kjk izdkf'kr
f”keyk] 'kfuokj] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
fgekpy izns'k ljdkj
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA -171001
NOTIFICATION
Shimla, the 1st July, 2014
No. HHC/GAZ/ 14-301/08-Part.—Hon’ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to grant 07
days’ earned leave w.e.f. 2.7.2014 to 8.7.2014 in favour of Sh. Nitin Mittal, Civil Judge (Junior
Division)-cum-JMIC, Chopal, District Shimla, H.P.
Certified that Sh. Nitin Mittal is likely to join the same post and at the same station from
where he proceeds on leave, after expiry of the above period of leave.
68&jkti=@2014&5&7&2014 ¼1543½
1544
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
Also certified that Sh. Nitin Mittal would have continued to hold the same post of Civil
Judge (Junior Division)-cum-JMIC, Chopal, District Shimla, H.P., but for his proceeding on leave
for the above period.
By order,
Sd/-
Registrar General.
__________
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA - 171001
NOTIFICATION
Shimla, the 1st July, 2014
No. HHC/GAZ/14-196/89-III-Part.—Hon’ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to grant
25 days’ earned leave w.e.f. 7.7.2014 to 31.7.2014 with permission to prefix Sunday falling
on 6.7.2014 in favour of Shri K.K. Sharma, Additional District and Session Judge (I), Kangra at
Dharamshala, H.P.
Certified that Shri K.K. Sharma is likely to join the same post and at the same station from
where he proceeds on leave, after expiry of the above period of leave.
Also certified that Shri K.K. Sharma would have continued to hold the same post of
Additional District and Sessions Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., but for his proceeding on
leave for the above period.
By order,
Sd/-
Registrar General.
__________
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA - 171001
NOTIFICATION
Shimla, the 1st July, 2014
No. HHC/Admn. 6 (23)/74-XV.—Hon’ble the Chief Justice in exercise of the powers
vested in him under Rule 2 (32) of Chapter 1 of H.P. Financial Rules, 2009 has been pleased to
declare Additional District and Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. as Drawing and
Disbursing Officer in respect of the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (I), Kangra at
Dharamshala also the Controlling Officer for the purpose of salary, T.A. etc. in respect of
establishment attached to the aforesaid Court under Major Head “2014- Administration of Justice”
during the earned leave period of Sh. K.K. Sharma, Additional District and Sessions Judge (I),
Kangra at Dharamshala w.e.f. 7.7.2014 to 31.7.2014 with permission to prefix Sunday falling on
6.7.2014 or until he returns from leave.
By order,
Sd/-
Registrar General.
1545
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA – 171001
NOTIFICATION
Shimla, the 1st July, 2014
No. HHC/Admn. 6 (23)/74-XV.—Hon’ble the Chief Justice in exercise of the powers
vested in him under Rule 2 (32) of Chapter 1 of H.P. Financial Rules, 2009 has been pleased to
declare Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chamba, H.P. as Drawing and Disbursing Officer
in respect of the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Chamba and also the Controlling Officer for
the purpose of salary, T.A. etc. in respect of establishment attached to the aforesaid Court under
Major Head “2014-Administration of Justice” during the earned leave period of Sh. R. K. Sharma,
District and Sessions Judge, Chamba w.e.f. 14.7.2014 to 24.7.2014 with permission to prefix
Sunday falling on 13.7.2014 or until he returns from leave.
By order,
Sd/-
Registrar General.
__________
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA - 171001
NOTIFICATION
Shimla, the 1st July, 2014
No. HHC/GAZ/14-202/90-II.—Hon’ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to grant 11
days’earned leave w.e.f. 14.7.2014 to 24.7.2014 with permission to prefix Sunday falling
on 13.7.2014 in favour of Shri R.K. Sharma, District and Session Judge, Chamba, H.P.
Certified that Shri R.K. Sharma is likely to join the same post and at the same station from
where he proceeds on leave, after expiry of the above period of leave.
Also certified that Shri R.K. Sharma would have continued to hold the same post of District
and Sessions Judge, Chamba, H.P., but for his proceeding on leave for the above period.
By order,
Sd/-
Registrar General.
_________
LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATION
Shimla-2, the 19th June, 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.
1546
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
Sr.
No.
Case No.
Title of the Case
Date of
Award
1.
38/2014
S/Shri Gandhi Ram V/s E.E.HPPWD, J/Nagar.
02-04-2014
2.
39/2014
Pyar Chand V/s -do-
02-04-2014
3.
40/2014
Sukh Dev V/S -do-
02-04-2014
4.
41/2014
Shesh Ram V/S -do-
02-04-2014
5.
43/2014
Duni Chand V/s -do-
02-04-2014
6.
44/2014
Maya Devi V/s -do-
02-04-2014
7.
45/2014
Guddi Devi V/s -do-
02-04-2014
8.
49/2014
Inder Singh V/s -do-
02-04-2014
9.
66/2014
Matwar V/s -do-
02-04-2014
10.
26/2014
Ramesh Chand V/s -do-
02-04-2014
11.
30/2014
Bidya Devi V/s -do-
02-04-2014
12.
84/2012
Van Mazdoor Sangathan V/s Principal Chief Cons. of Forest. 03-04-2014
13.
243/2012
Baldev Chand V/s G.M. Bharti telenet.
03-04-2014
14.
34/2014
Sanjay Kumar V/s Employer KKK Hydro power.
04-04-2014
15.
91/2014
Rishi Kant V/s M/s Tigaksha Metallics
10-04-2014
16.
92/2014
Ramti Raman V/s -do-
10-04-2014
17.
210/2013
Partap Singh V/s E.E.HPPWD, Dharampur
12-04-2014
18.
211/2013
Onkar Chand V/s -do-
12-04-2014
19.
209/2013
Raj Kumar V/s -do-
12-04-2014
20.
212/2013
Sheela Devi V/S -do-
12-04-2014
21.
33/2012
Praveen Kumar V/s -do-
12-04-2014
22.
08/2012
Jagdish Chand V/s -do-
12-04-2014
23.
50/2012
Sanjay Kumar V/s -do-
12-04-2014
24.
37/2012
Fulmu Devi V/s -do-
12-04-2014
25.
358/2012
Dila Ram V/s -do-
12-04-2014
26.
21/2012
Alankrit V/s -do-
12-04-2014
27.
25/2012
Gian Chand V/s -do-
12-04-2014
28.
15/2014
Surat Singh V/s -do-
12-04-2014
29.
24/2014
Purvia Ram V/s -do-
12-04-2014
30.
215/2013
Beli Ram V/s E.E. HPPWD Ghumarwin
12-04-2014
31.
227/2012
Bhichhi Devi V/s E.O. M.C. Mandi
16-04-2014
32.
93/2014
Jaswant Kaur V/s M/s Tigaksha Metallics
15-04-2014
33.
339/2012
Budhi Devi V/s Secty. Forest
16-04-2014
34.
57/2013
Maghu Ram V/s D.F.O. Killer
17-04-2014
35.
11/2014
Nathu Ram V/s M.D. M/s Tigaksha Metallics
29-04-2014
36.
103/2014
Yash Pal V/s Factory Manager M/s AK
29-04-2014
37.
45/2013
Ghanshyam V/s D.F.O. Suket
30-04-2014
38.
58/2014
Jai Singh V/s E.E.HPPWD J/Nagar
01-05-2014
39.
118/2013
Pradhan HP State Handi V/s M.D. HP State Handicraft.
01-05-2014
40.
50/2013
Mohan Lal V/s E.E. HPPWD, Killer
01-05-2014
41.
79/2013
Kishori Lal V/s E.E. HPPWD, Pangi
01-05-2014
42.
04/2013
Bir Singh V/s E.E. HPPWD, Gohar
05-05-2014
43.
125/2011
Renu Mehra V/s Principal DAV Sr.Sec.School
05-05-2014
44.
53/2013
Hem Kund V/s D.F.O. Suket, S/Nagar
12-05-2014
45.
54/2013
Hem Raj V/s D.F.O. Suket, S/Nagar
12-05-2014
46.
194/2013
Guddi Devi V/s E.E. HPPWD J/Nagar
15-05-2014
47.
162/2013
Vijay Pal V/s -do-
15-05-2014
48.
188/2013
Santosh Kumar V/s -do-
15-05-2014
1547
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
49.
203/2013
Krishan Singh V/s -do-
15-05-2014
50.
204/2013
Hoshiyar Singh V/s -do-
15-05-2014
51.
134/2013
Ghanshshyam Singh V/s -do-
15-05-2014
52.
143/2014
Baldev Kumar V/s CSK. HPKVV Palampur
20-05-2014
53.
146/2014
Pawan Kumar V/s -do-
20-05-2014
54.
153/2014
Birbal V/s -do-
20-05-2014
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. : 38/2014
Shri Gandhi Ram s/o Shri Puran Chand, r/o Village Changher, P.O. Khaddar, 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.
02-04-2014
Present :
None for the petitioner.
Sh. B.S. Barwal, Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD,
Joginder Nagar (respondent) with Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, A.D.A.
The respondent/Executive Engineer has made the below given statement in the Court today
on oath:-
“ The claimant / petitioner has not turned up despite intimation. As per the information
received by me from the field staff, the petitioner is not interested to come to the Court and
pursue the case since he/she is still working and the muster rolls are being issued in his/her
favour regularly.
RO & AC
P.J.”
Sd/-
02-04-2014
2. In view of the above noted statement, I have no hesitation to conclude that no artificial
breaks in service (as per the reference) were given 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.
1548
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
IN THE COURT OF RAJAN GUPTA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.
Ref: No. : 39/2014
Shri Pyar Chand s/o Shri Sardaru Ram, r/o Village Passal, P.O. Chauntra, 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.
02-04-2014
Present :
None for the petitioner.
Sh. B.S. Barwal, Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD,
Joginder Nagar (respondent) with Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, A.D.A.
The respondent/Executive Engineer has made the below given statement in the Court today
on oath:-
“ The claimant / petitioner has not turned up despite intimation. As per the information
received by me from the field staff, the petitioner is not interested to come to the Court and pursue
the case since he/she is still working and the muster rolls are being issued in his/her favour
regularly.
RO & AC
P.J.”
Sd/-
02-04-2014
2. In view of the above noted statement, I have no hesitation to conclude that no artificial
breaks in service (as per the reference) were given 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. : 40/2014
Shri Sukh Dev s/o Shri Kamapa Ram, r/o Village Baragra, P.O. Chauntra, Tehsil Joginder
Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P.
..Petitioner.
1549
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
Versus
The Executive Engineer, B&R Division H.P.P.W.D., Joginder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P.
..Respondent.
02-04-2014
Present :
None for the petitioner.
Sh. B.S. Barwal, Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD,
Joginder Nagar (respondent) with Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, A.D.A.
The respondent/Executive Engineer has made the below given statement in the Court today
on oath:-
“ The claimant / petitioner has not turned up despite intimation. As per the information
received by me from the field staff, the petitioner is not interested to come to the Court and
pursue the case since he/she is still working and the muster rolls are being issued in his/her
favour regularly.
RO & AC
P.J.”
Sd/-
02-04-2014
2. In view of the above noted statement, I have no hesitation to conclude that no artificial
breaks in service (as per the reference) were given 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. : 41/2014
Shri Shesh Ram s/o Shri Duni Ram, r/o Village Bragra, P.O.Chauntra, 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.
1550
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
02-04-2014
Present :
None for the petitioner.
Sh. B.S. Barwal, Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD,
Joginder Nagar (respondent) with Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, A.D.A.
The respondent/Executive Engineer has made the below given statement in the Court today
on oath:-
“ The claimant / petitioner has not turned up despite intimation. As per the information
received by me from the field staff, the petitioner is not interested to come to the Court and
pursue the case since he/she is still working and the muster rolls are being issued in his/her
favour regularly.
RO & AC
P.J.”
Sd/-
02-04-2014
2. In view of the above noted statement, I have no hesitation to conclude that no artificial
breaks in service (as per the reference) were given 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. : 43/2014
Shri Duni Chand s/o Shri Sanichru Ram, r/o Village Ladwan, P.O. Pipli, 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.
02-04-2014
Present :
None for the petitioner.
Sh. B.S. Barwal, Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD,
Joginder Nagar (respondent) with Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, A.D.A.
1551
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
The respondent/Executive Engineer has made the below given statement in the Court today
on oath:-
“ The claimant / petitioner has not turned up despite intimation. As per the information
received by me from the field staff, the petitioner is not interested to come to the Court and
pursue the case since he/she is still working and the muster rolls are being issued in his/her
favour regularly.
RO & AC
P.J.”
Sd/-
02-04-2014
2. In view of the above noted statement, I have no hesitation to conclude that no artificial
breaks in service (as per the reference) were given 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. : 44/2014
Smt. Maya Devi w/o Shri Naresh Kumar, r/o Village Panertu, P.O. Panjalag, 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.
02-04-2014
Present :
None for the petitioner.
Sh. B.S. Barwal, Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD,
Joginder Nagar (respondent) with Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, A.D.A.
The respondent/Executive Engineer has made the below given statement in the Court today
on oath:-
1552
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
“ The claimant / petitioner has not turned up despite intimation. As per the information
received by me from the field staff, the petitioner is not interested to come to the Court and
pursue the case since he/she is still working and the muster rolls are being issued in his/her
favour regularly.
RO & AC
P.J.”
Sd/-
02-04-2014
2. In view of the above noted statement, I have no hesitation to conclude that no artificial
breaks in service (as per the reference) were given 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. : 45/2014
Smt. Guddi Devi w/o Shri Sadhu Ram, r/o Village Tobri, P.O. Dalag, 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.
02-04-2014
Present :
None for the petitioner.
Sh. B.S. Barwal, Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD,
Joginder Nagar (respondent) with Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, A.D.A.
The respondent/Executive Engineer has made the below given statement in the Court today
on oath:-
“ The claimant / petitioner has not turned up despite intimation. As per the information
received by me from the field staff, the petitioner is not interested to come to the Court and
pursue the case since he/she is still working and the muster rolls are being issued in his/her
favour regularly.
1553
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
RO & AC
P.J.”
Sd/-
02-04-2014
2. In view of the above noted statement, I have no hesitation to conclude that no artificial
breaks in service (as per the reference) were given 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. : 49/2014
Shri Inder Singh s/o Shri Ganesh, r/o Village Mortan, P.O. Bharol, 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.
02-04-2014
Present :
None for the petitioner.
Sh. B.S. Barwal, Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD,
Joginder Nagar (respondent) with Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, A.D.A.
The respondent/Executive Engineer has made the below given statement in the Court today
on oath:-
“ The claimant / petitioner has not turned up despite intimation. As per the information
received by me from the field staff, the petitioner is not interested to come to the Court and pursue
the case since he/she is still working and the muster rolls are being issued in his/her favour
regularly.
RO & AC
P.J.”
Sd/-
02-04-2014
1554
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
2. In view of the above noted statement, I have no hesitation to conclude that no artificial
breaks in service (as per the reference) were given 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. : 66/2014
Shri Matwar s/o Shri Dayal Singh, r/o Village Rash, P.O. Panjalag, 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.
02-04-2014
Present :
None for the petitioner.
Sh. B.S. Barwal, Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD,
Joginder Nagar (respondent) with Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, A.D.A.
The respondent/Executive Engineer has made the below given statement in the Court today
on oath:-
“ The claimant / petitioner has not turned up despite intimation. As per the information
received by me from the field staff, the petitioner is not interested to come to the Court and
pursue the case since he/she is still working and the muster rolls are being issued in his/her
favour regularly.
RO & AC
P.J.”
Sd/-
02-04-2014
2. In view of the above noted statement, I have no hesitation to conclude that no artificial
breaks in service (as per the reference) were given to the petitioner by the respondent. Parties to
bear their own costs.
3. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
1555
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
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. : 26/2014
Shri Ramesh Chand s/o Shri Budhi Singh, r/o Village Barnod, P.O.Golwan, 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.
02-04-2014
Present :
None for the petitioner.
Sh. B.S. Barwal, Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD,
Joginder Nagar (respondent) with Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, A.D.A.
The respondent/Executive Engineer has made the below given statement in the Court today
on oath:-
“ The claimant/petitioner has not turned up despite intimation. As per the information
received by me from the field staff, the petitioner is not interested to come to the Court and
pursue the case since he/she is still working and the muster rolls are being issued in his/her
favour regularly.
RO & AC
P.J.”
Sd/-
02-04-2014
2. In view of the above noted statement, I have no hesitation to conclude that no artificial
breaks in service (as per the reference) were given 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.
1556
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
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. : 30/2014
Smt. Bidya Devi w/o Shri Kalu Ram, r/o V.P.O. Makaridi, 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.
02-04-2014
Present :
None for the petitioner.
Sh. B.S. Barwal, Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD,
Joginder Nagar (respondent) with Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, A.D.A.
The respondent/Executive Engineer has made the below given statement in the Court today
on oath:-
“ The claimant / petitioner has not turned up despite intimation. As per the information
received by me from the field staff, the petitioner is not interested to come to the Court and
pursue the case since he/she is still working and the muster rolls are being issued in his/her
favour regularly.
RO & AC
P.J.”
Sd/-
02-04-2014
2. In view of the above noted statement, I have no hesitation to conclude that no artificial
breaks in service (as per the reference) were given 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.
1557
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
IN THE COURT OF RAJAN GUPTA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.(Camp at Mandi).
Ref: No. : 84/2012
Van Mazdoor Sanghthan, Reg. No. VI-9517, Mohal, District Kullu, H.P. through its President
Rajender Singh s/o Shri Tej Ram, r/o Village Kartah, P.O. Ropa, Sub Tehsil Sainj, Distt. Kullu,
H.P.
..Petitioner.
Versus
1. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Talland, Shimla-171001.
2. The Chief Conservator of Forests, National Park Shamshi, Tehsil & Distt. Kullu, H.P.
..Respondents.
03-04-2014
Present :
Sh. Rajinder Singh, President of the Mazdoor Sangathan with Sh.
Sanjay Mandyal, Adv.
Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, A.D.A. for the respondents.
Reply to the amendment application not filed. Previous costs of Rs. 2,000/- not paid. Sh.
Rajinder Singh, President has made the below given statement in the Court today:-
“ eSa ftyk cu etnwj laxBu eksgy ftyk dqYyw dk iz/kku gawA ge ;g dsl u pykuk pkgrs gSa
D;ksafd eaS vktdy fdlh vksj txg dk;Zjr gwaA rduhdh dkj.kksa ls eSa etnwj laxBu dk iz/kku Hkfo"; esa
u jg ldrk gwaA ;g reference/claim petition nkf[ky nQ~rj dh tkosA ge vius fgrksa dh j{kk ds fy,
t:jr iM+us ij u;k demand notice izfroknhx.k dks tkjh djsaxsA
RO & AC
P.J.”
Sd/-
03-04-2014
2. 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. 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.(Camp at Mandi).
Ref: No. : 243/2012
1558
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
Sh. Baldev Chand s/o Sh. Hirda Ram, Village-Banerdi, P.O. Pehar, Tehsil Sarkaghat, Distt.
Mandi, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Versus
The General Manager, Bharti Telenet (Airtel), Airtel Towers, Mehli Mount, NH 22, Mehli,
Shimla-171009.
..Respondent.
03-04-2014 Present : Petitioner with Sh. Lokesh Kapoor, Adv.
Sh. Shyam Kumar, Adv. csl. for the respondent.
The case is listed for arguments today, but the claimant/petitioner has made the below given
statement in the Court :-
“ eSa ;g reference/claim petition u pykuk pkgrk gwaA nkf[ky n¶rj dh tkosA eSa iSlksa dh olwyh
ds fy, fnokuh vnkyr esa eqdnek d:axkA
RO & AC
P.J.”
Sd/-
03-04-2014
2. 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. 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.(Camp at Mandi)
Ref: No. : 34/2014
Sh. Sanjay Kumar s/o Shri Mehar Chand Thakur, r/o Village Shilla Halan-II, P.O. Patlikuhal,
District Kullu, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Versus
The Employer/Executive Director, K.K.K. Hydro Power Ltd. Baragran, Tehsil & District
Kullu, H.P.
..Respondent.
04-04-2014
Present :
None for the petitioner.
1559
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
Sh. Varun Kant Sharma, Adv. csl. for the respondent.
The petitioner has not turned up despite service / knowledge. Ld. csl. for the respondent has
made the below given statement in the Court today :-
“ oknh ds lkFk le>kSrk gks pqdk gSA Full and final payment dh receipt dh dkih Mark-A gSA
oknh dks iSls banker Cheque }kjk fn, x, Fks A ftldh dkih Mark-B gS A le>kSrk gksus ds
dkj.k gh oknh vkt vnkyr esa u vk;k gSa A og ;g dsl u pykuk pkgrk gS A eSus oknh
lat; dqekju ls [kqn Qksu ij ckr dh Fkh A mlus eq>s crk;k fd og le>kSrk gksus ds dkj.k
vnkyr esa u tk,xk vkSj ;g dsl pykus esa og interested gS A
RO & AC
P.J.”
Sd/-
04-04-2014
2. 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. 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. : 91/2014
Sh. Rishi Kant s/o Shri Chiranji Lal, r/o VPO Dhandhari/Churadu, Tehsil Amb, District Una,
H.P.
..Petitioner.
Versus
1. Shri Vijay Kumar, c/o M/S Tigaksha Metallics Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 16, Ram Nagar,
Industrial Area Gagret, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. (Contractor).
2. The Managing Director/Employer, M/S Tigaksha Metallics Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 16, Ram
Nagar, Industrial Area Gagret, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. (Principal employer) ..Respondents.
10-04-2014 Present : None for the petitioner.
None for the respondent No.1.
Sh. Anil Patial, Sr. Executive for the respondent No.2.
1560
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
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. Even statement of claim/demand has not been filed by the petitioner till date.
2. In view of the aforesaid facts, I have no hesitation to conclude that the petitioner is not
interested to pursue the matter. For want of statement of claim/demand, it cannot be said that
termination of the services of the petitioner by the respondents is illegal and unjustified. 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. : 92/2014
Sh. Ramti Raman s/o Shri Prithi Chand, r/o V.P.O. Heera Nagar/Kalaruhi, Tehsil Amb,
District Una, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Versus
The Managing Director/Employer, M/S Tigaksha Metallics Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 16, Ram
Nagar, Industrial Area Gagret, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P.
..Respondent.
10-04-2014 Present : None for the petitioner.
Sh. Anil Patial, Sr. Executive 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. Even statement of claim/demand has not been filed by the petitioner till date.
2. In view of the aforesaid facts, I have no hesitation to conclude that the petitioner is not
interested to pursue the matter. For want of statement of claim/demand, it cannot be said that
termination of the services of the petitioner by the respondent is illegal and unjustified. Parties to
bear their own costs.
3. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
1561
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
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 MEGA LOK ADALAT, H.P. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
DHARAMSHALA
Reference No. 210/2013
Shri Partap Singh s/o Shri Mahajan Ram, R/o Village & P.O. Sari, Tehsil Sarkaghat, Distt.
Mandi, H.P.
..Petitioner.
vs.
The Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Dharampur, Distt. Mandi, H.P.
..Respondent.
12.4.2014 Present: Shri Vijay Kaundal, Adv. for the petitioner
Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta, Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division,
Dharampur (respondent) with Shri Sanjeev Singh Rana, ADA
Award
With the intervention of the Lok Adalat, the parties have compromised. Statements of the
respondent/Executive Engineer and the ld. counsel for the petitioner have been recorded separately.
The same are reproduced below for ready reference:-
St. of Respd.
“In view of the similar matters already decided by this Court and the Hon’ble High Court of
Himachal Pradesh, I have no objection if the instant reference/claim petition is allowed. The
termination of the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 08.07.2005 may be set aside. The petitioner shall
be entitled to the seniority and continuity in service from the date of the termination i.e.
08.07.2005. He (petitioner) will also be entitled to Rs.35,000/- (thirty five thousand only) to be paid
by the department in lieu of the back wages and compensation etc. The services of the petitioner
will be re-engaged after obtaining/receiving the sanction from the competent authority.
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sd/-
RO&AC
Member
Judge
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
Statement of Shri Vijay Kuandal, adv. counsel for the claimant/petitioner
Date
12.04.2014
1562
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
I have heard the above statement made by the respondent and am satisfied with it. The
reference/claim petition may be decided accordingly. As per the compromise, my client has agreed
to receive the compensation of Rs.35,000/- (instead of Rs.50,000/-).
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sd/-
RO&AC
Member
Judge
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat”
2. Ordered accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs.
3. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
4. A copy of this 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:
Bobby Maratha
Rajan Gupta
(Member)
(Judge)
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
________
IN THE MEGA LOK ADALAT, H.P. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
DHARAMSHALA
Reference No.211/2013
Shri Omkar Chand s/o Shri Harphool Singh, r/o Village Badher, P.O. Kujabalth, Tehsil
Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi, H.P.
..Petitioner.
vs.
The Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Dharampur, Distt. Mandi, H.P.
..Respondent.
12.4.2014 Present : Shri Vijay Kaundal, Adv. for the petitioner
Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta, Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division,
Dharampur (respondent) with Shri Sanjeev Singh Rana, ADA
AWARD
With the intervention of the Lok Adalat, the parties have compromised. Statements of the
respondent/Executive Engineer and the ld. counsel for the petitioner have been recorded separately.
The same are reproduced below for ready reference:-
St. of the respondent
“In view of the similar matters already decided by this Court and the Hon’ble High Court of
Himachal Pradesh, I have no objection if the instant reference/claim petition is allowed. The
termination of the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 08.07.2005 may be set aside. The petitioner shall
be entitled to the seniority and continuity in service from the date of the termination i.e.
08.07.2005. He (petitioner) will also be entitled to Rs.35,000/- (thirty five thousand only) to be paid
1563
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
by the department in lieu of the back wages and compensation etc. The services of the petitioner
will be re-engaged after obtaining/receiving the sanction from the competent authority.
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sd/-
RO&AC
Member
Judge
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
Statement of Shri Vijay Kuandal, adv. counsel for the claimant/petitioner
Date
12.04.2014
I have heard the above statement made by the respondent and am satisfied with it. The
reference/claim petition may be decided accordingly. As per the compromise, my client has agreed
to receive the compensation of Rs.35,000/- (instead of Rs.50,000/-).
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sd/-
RO&AC
Member
Judge
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat”
2. Ordered accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs.
3. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
4. A copy of this 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:
Bobby Maratha
Rajan Gupta
(Member)
(Judge)
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
_______
IN THE MEGA LOK ADALAT, H.P. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
DHARAMSHALA
Reference No.209/2013
Shri Raj Kumar s/o Shri Surat Singh, r/o Village Katheli, P.O. Longni, Tehsil Sarkaghat,
Distt. Mandi, H.P.
..Petitioner.
vs.
The Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Dharampur, Distt. Mandi, H.P.
..Respondent.
12.4.2014 Present : Shri Vijay Kaundal, Adv. for the petitioner
Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta, Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division,
Dharampur (respondent) with Shri Sanjeev Singh Rana, ADA
AWARD
1564
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
With the intervention of the Lok Adalat, the parties have compromised. Statements of the
respondent/Executive Engineer and the ld. counsel for the petitioner have been recorded separately.
The same are reproduced below for ready reference:-
St. of Respd.
“In view of the similar matters already decided by this Court and the Hon’ble High Court of
Himachal Pradesh, I have no objection if the instant reference/claim petition is allowed. The
termination of the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 08.07.2005 may be set aside. The petitioner
shall be entitled to the seniority and continuity in service from the date of the termination i.e.
08.07.2005. He (petitioner) will also be entitled to Rs.35,000/- (thirty five thousand only) to
be paid by the department in lieu of the back wages and compensation etc. The services of the
petitioner will be re-engaged after obtaining/receiving the sanction from the competent
authority.
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sd/-
RO&AC
Member
Judge
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
Statement of Shri Vijay Kuandal, adv. counsel for the claimant/petitioner
Date
12.04.2014
I have heard the above statement made by the respondent and am satisfied with it. The
reference/claim petition may be decided accordingly. As per the compromise, my client has agreed
to receive the compensation of Rs.35,000/- (instead of Rs.50,000/-).
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sd/-
RO&AC
Member
Judge
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat”
2. Ordered accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs.
3. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
4. A copy of this 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:
Bobby Maratha
Rajan Gupta
(Member)
(Judge)
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
________
IN THE MEGA LOK ADALAT, H.P. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
DHARAMSHALA
Reference No.212/2013
Smt. Sheela Devi w/o Shri Hem Raj, r/o Village Labanpur, P.O. Baroti, Tehsil Sarkaghat,
Distt. Mandi, H.P.
..Petitioner.
1565
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
Vs.
The Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Dharampur, Distt. Mandi, H.P.
..Respondent.
12.4.2014 Present : Shri Vijay Kaundal, Adv. for the petitioner
Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta, Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division,
Dharampur (respondent) with Shri Sanjeev Singh Rana, ADA
AWARD
With the intervention of the Lok Adalat, the parties have compromised. Statements of the
respondent/Executive Engineer and the ld. counsel for the petitioner have been recorded separately.
The same are reproduced below for ready reference:-
St. of Respd.
“In view of the similar matters already decided by this Court and the Hon’ble High Court of
Himachal Pradesh, I have no objection if the instant reference/claim petition is allowed. The
termination of the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 08.07.2005 may be set aside. The petitioner
shall be entitled to the seniority and continuity in service from the date of the termination i.e.
08.07.2005. She (petitioner) will also be entitled to Rs.35,000/- (thirty five thousand only) to
be paid by the department in lieu of the back wages and compensation etc. The services of the
petitioner will be re-engaged after obtaining/receiving the sanction from the competent
authority.
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sd/-
RO&AC
Member
Judge
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
Statement of Shri Vijay Kuandal, adv. counsel for the claimant/petitioner
Date
12.04.2014
I have heard the above statement made by the respondent and am satisfied with it. The
reference/claim petition may be decided accordingly. As per the compromise, my client has agreed
to receive the compensation of Rs.35,000/- (instead of Rs.50,000/-).
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sd/-
RO&AC
Member
Judge
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat”
2. Ordered accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs.
3. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
4. A copy of this 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:
Bobby Maratha
Rajan Gupta
(Member)
(Judge)
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
1566
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
IN THE MEGA LOK ADALAT, H.P. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
DHARAMSHALA
Reference No.33/2012
Shri Parveen Kumar s/o Shri Jagdish Chand, r/o Village Chapanu, P.O. Dharampur, Tehsil
Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Vs.
The Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. (B&R) Division, Dharampur, Tehsil Sarkaghat, Distt.
Mandi, H.P.
..Respondent.
vs. The Executive Engineer, HPPWD Dharampur
12.4.2014 Present : Shri Vijay Kaundal, Adv. for the petitioner
Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta, Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division,
Dharampur (respondent) with Shri Sanjeev Singh Rana, ADA
AWARD
With the intervention of the Lok Adalat, the parties have compromised. Statements of the
respondent/Executive Engineer and the ld. counsel for the petitioner have been recorded separately.
The same are reproduced below for ready reference:-
St. of the Respd.
“The date of retrenchment of the petitioner is wrongly mentioned in the reference/notification
issued by the appropriate Government (Labour Commissioner, H.P.). The actual date of
termination of the services of the petitioner is 09-02-2004 as per the record. I have no
objection, in case, this reference/claim petition is allowed since the similar matters have
already been decided by this Court and the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The
retrenchment of the services of the petitioner may be set aside. He shall be entitled to the
seniority and continuity in service from the date of the termination i.e. 09-02-2004. The
petitioner shall also be entitled to lump-sum amount of Rs. 35,000/-(Thirty Five Thousand
only) to be paid by the department in lieu of the back wages and compensation etc. The
services of the petitioner will be re-engaged after obtaining /receiving the sanction from the
competent authority.
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sd/-
RO & AC
Member
Judge
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
Statement of Shri Vijay Kaundal, adv. counsel for the claimant/petitioner.
Date
12-04-2014
I have heard the above statement made by the respondent and am satisfied with it. The
reference/claim petition may be decided accordingly. As per the compromise, my client has agreed
to receive the compensation of Rs. 35,000/- (instead of Rs. 50,000/-).
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sd/-
RO & AC
Member
Judge
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
1567
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
2. Ordered accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs.
3. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
4. A copy of this 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:
Bobby Maratha
Rajan Gupta
(Member)
(Judge)
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
_________
IN THE MEGA LOK ADALAT, H.P. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
DHARAMSHALA
Reference No.08/2012
Shri Jagdish Chand s/o Shri Mani Ram, r/o Village and P.O. Pehad, Sub Tehsil Dharampur,
District Mandi, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Vs.
The Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. (B&R) Division, Dharampur, Tehsil Sarkaghat, Distt.
Mandi, H.P.
12.4.2014 Present : Shri Vijay Kaundal, Adv. for the petitioner
Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta, Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division,
Dharampur (respondent) with Shri Sanjeev Singh Rana, ADA
AWARD
With the intervention of the Lok Adalat, the parties have compromised. Statements of the
respondent/Executive Engineer and the ld. counsel for the petitioner have been recorded separately.
The same are reproduced below for ready reference:-
St. of the Respd.
“The date of retrenchment of the petitioner is wrongly mentioned in the reference/notification
issued by the appropriate Government (Labour Commissioner, H.P.). The actual date of
termination of the services of the petitioner is 09-02-2004 as per the record. I have no
objection, in case, this reference/claim petition is allowed since the similar matters have
already been decided by this Court and the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The
retrenchment of the services of the petitioner may be set aside. He shall be entitled to the
seniority and continuity in service from the date of the termination i.e. 09-02-2004. The
petitioner shall also be entitled to lump-sum amount of Rs. 35,000/-(Thirty Five Thousand
only) to be paid by the department in lieu of the back wages and compensation etc. The
services of the petitioner will be re-engaged after obtaining /receiving the sanction from the
competent authority.
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sd/-
RO & AC
Member
Judge
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
1568
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
Statement of Shri Vijay Kaundal, adv. counsel for the claimant/petitioner.
Date
12-04-2014
I have heard the above statement made by the respondent and am satisfied with it. The
reference/claim petition may be decided accordingly. As per the compromise, my client has agreed
to receive the compensation of Rs. 35,000/- (instead of Rs. 50,000/-).
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sd/-
RO & AC
Member
Judge
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
2. Ordered accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs.
3. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
4. A copy of this 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:
Bobby Maratha
Rajan Gupta
(Member)
(Judge)
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
_________
IN THE MEGA LOK ADALAT, H.P. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
DHARAMSHALA
Reference No.50/2012
Shri Sanjay Kumar s/o Shri Sher Singh, r/o Village Haryanal, P.O. Tanehad, Tehsil
Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Vs.
The Executive Engineer, HPPWD (B&R) Division Dharampur, Distt. Mandi, H.P.
..Respondent.
12.4.2014 Present : Shri Vijay Kaundal, Adv. for the petitioner
Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta, Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division,
Dharampur (respondent) with Shri Sanjeev Singh Rana, ADA
AWARD
With the intervention of the Lok Adalat, the parties have compromised. Statements of the
respondent/Executive Engineer and the ld. counsel for the petitioner have been recorded separately.
The same are reproduced below for ready reference:-
St. of the Respd.
1569
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
“The date of retrenchment of the petitioner is wrongly mentioned in the reference/notification
issued by the appropriate Government (Labour Commissioner, H.P.). The actual date of
termination of the services of the petitioner is 09-02-2004 as per the record. I have no
objection, in case, this reference/claim petition is allowed since the similar matters have
already been decided by this Court and the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The
retrenchment of the services of the petitioner may be set aside. He shall be entitled to the
seniority and continuity in service from the date of the termination i.e. 09-02-2004. The
petitioner shall also be entitled to lump-sum amount of Rs. 35,000/-(Thirty Five Thousand
only) to be paid by the department in lieu of the back wages and compensation etc. The
services of the petitioner will be re-engaged after obtaining /receiving the sanction from the
competent authority.
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sd/-
RO & AC
Member
Judge
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
Statement of Shri Vijay Kaundal, adv. counsel for the claimant/petitioner.
Date
12-04-2014
I have heard the above statement made by the respondent and am satisfied with it. The
reference/claim petition may be decided accordingly. As per the compromise, my client has agreed
to receive the compensation of Rs. 35,000/- (instead of Rs. 50,000/-).
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sd/-
RO & AC
Member
Judge
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
2. Ordered accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs.
3. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
4. A copy of this 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:
Bobby Maratha
Rajan Gupta
(Member)
(Judge)
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
_________
IN THE MEGA LOK ADALAT, H.P. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
DHARAMSHALA
Reference No.37/2012
Smt. Fulmu Devi w/o Shri Jai Singh, r/o Village Baral, P.O. Baroti, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District
Mandi, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Vs.
1570
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
The Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. (B&R) Division, Dharampur, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District
Mandi, H.P.
..Respondent.
12.4.2014 Present : Shri Vijay Kaundal, Adv. for the petitioner
Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta, Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division,
Dharampur (respondent) with Shri Sanjeev Singh Rana, ADA
AWARD
With the intervention of the Lok Adalat, the parties have compromised. Statements of the
respondent/Executive Engineer and the ld. counsel for the petitioner have been recorded separately.
The same are reproduced below for ready reference:-
St. of the Respd.
“The date of retrenchment of the petitioner is wrongly mentioned in the reference/notification
issued by the appropriate Government (Labour Commissioner, H.P.). The actual date of
termination of the services of the petitioner is 09-02-2004 as per the record. I have no
objection, in case, this reference/claim petition is allowed since the similar matters have
already been decided by this Court and the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The
retrenchment of the services of the petitioner may be set aside. She shall be entitled to the
seniority and continuity in service from the date of the termination i.e. 09-02-2004. The
petitioner shall also be entitled to lump-sum amount of Rs. 35,000/-(Thirty Five Thousand
only) to be paid by the department in lieu of the back wages and compensation etc. The
services of the petitioner will be re-engaged after obtaining /receiving the sanction from the
competent authority.
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sd/-
RO & AC
Member
Judge
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
Statement of Shri Vijay Kaundal, adv. counsel for the claimant/petitioner.
Date
12-04-2014
I have heard the above statement made by the respondent and am satisfied with it. The
reference/claim petition may be decided accordingly. As per the compromise, my client has agreed
to receive the compensation of Rs. 35,000/- (instead of Rs. 50,000/-).
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sd/-
RO & AC
Member
Judge
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
2. Ordered accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs.
3. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
4. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for further necessary action
at its end.
1571
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
5. File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced:
Bobby Maratha
Rajan Gupta
(Member)
(Judge)
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
________
IN THE MEGA LOK ADALAT, H.P. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
DHARAMSHALA
Reference No.358/2012
Shri Dila Ram s/o Shri Kahan Singh, r/o Village Bhatour, P.O. Pehad, Tehsil Sarkaghat, Distt.
Mandi, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Vs.
The Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Dharampur, Distt. Mandi, H.P.
..Respondent.
12.4.2014 Present : Shri Vijay Kaundal, Adv. for the petitioner
Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta, Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division,
Dharampur (respondent) with Shri Sanjeev Singh Rana, ADA
AWARD
With the intervention of the Lok Adalat, the parties have compromised. Statements of the
respondent/Executive Engineer and the ld. counsel for the petitioner have been recorded separately.
The same are reproduced below for ready reference:-
St. of the Respd.
“The date of retrenchment of the petitioner is wrongly mentioned in the reference/notification
issued by the appropriate Government (Labour Commissioner, H.P.). The actual date of
termination of the services of the petitioner is 09-02-2004 as per the record. I have no
objection, in case, this reference/claim petition is allowed since the similar matters have
already been decided by this Court and the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The
retrenchment of the services of the petitioner may be set aside. He shall be entitled to the
seniority and continuity in service from the date of the termination i.e. 09-02-2004. The
petitioner shall also be entitled to lump-sum amount of Rs. 35,000/-(Thirty Five Thousand
only) to be paid by the department in lieu of the back wages and compensation etc. The
services of the petitioner will be re-engaged after obtaining /receiving the sanction from the
competent authority.
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sd/-
RO & AC
Member
Judge
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
Statement of Shri Vijay Kaundal, adv. counsel for the claimant/petitioner.
Date
12-04-2014
1572
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
I have heard the above statement made by the respondent and am satisfied with it. The
reference/claim petition may be decided accordingly. As per the compromise, my client has agreed
to receive the compensation of Rs. 35,000/- (instead of Rs. 50,000/-).
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sd/-
RO & AC
Member
Judge
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
2. Ordered accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs.
3. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
4. A copy of this 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:
Bobby Maratha
Rajan Gupta
(Member)
(Judge)
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
________
IN THE MEGA LOK ADALAT, H.P. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
DHARAMSHALA
Reference No. 21/2012
Shri Alankrit s/o Shri Jindu Ram, r/o Village Ludhiyana, P.O. Pehad, Sub Tehsil Dharampur,
District Mandi, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Vs.
The Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. (B&R) Division, Dharampuar, Tehsil Sarkaghat,
District Mandi, H.P.
..Respondent.
12.4.2014 Present : Shri Vijay Kaundal, adv. for the petitioner
Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta, Executive Engineer, HPPWD (B&R) Division,
Dharampur (respondent) with Shri Sanjeev Singh Rana, ADA
AWARD
With the intervention of the Lok Adalat, the parties have compromised. Statements of the
respondent/Executive Engineer and the ld. counsel for the petitioner have been recorded separately.
The same are reproduced below for ready reference:-
St. of Sh. Naresh Gupta (Respd.)
“The petitioner/workman Sh. Alankrit died on 21.5.2013. I produce the photo stat copy of his
death certificate. The date of termination of the services of the petitioner is wrongly
mentioned in the reference/notification issued by the appropriate Government. As per the
record, the services of the deceased petitioner were terminated on 09.2.2004. In view of the
similar matters already decided by this Court and the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal
1573
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
Pradesh, I have no objection in case the termination of the services of the workman ordered
on 09.2.2004 is set aside. The department will pay Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand) as
compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased workman. Such amount will be paid in equal
shares to all the legal heirs of the deceased. The petitioner will also be entitled to the seniority
and continuity in service from the date of the termination i.e. 09.2.2004 till his death.
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sd/-
RO&AC
Member
Judge
Statement of Shri Vijay Kaundal, adv. for the petitioner
Date
12.4.2014
I have heard the above statement made by the respondent and am satisfied with it. The
reference/claim petition may be decided accordingly.
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sd/-
RO&AC
Member
Judge”
2. Ordered accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs.
3. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
4. A copy of this 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:
Bobby Maratha
Rajan Gupta
(Member)
(Judge)
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
_________
IN THE MEGA LOK ADALAT, H.P. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
DHARAMSHALA
Reference No.25/2012
Shri Gian Chand s/o Shri Guju Ram, r/o Village Kherhar, P.O. Hyun Pehad, Tehsil Sarkaghat,
Distt. Mandi, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Vs.
The Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. (B&R) Division, Dharampur, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District
Mandi, H.P.
..Respondent.
12.4.2014 Present : Shri Vijay Kaundal, Adv. for the petitioner
Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta, Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division,
Dharampur (respondent) with Shri Sanjeev Singh Rana, ADA
AWARD
1574
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
With the intervention of the Lok Adalat, the parties have compromised. Statements of the
respondent/Executive Engineer and the ld. counsel for the petitioner have been recorded separately.
The same are reproduced below for ready reference:-
St. of the Respd.
“The date of retrenchment of the petitioner is wrongly mentioned in the reference/notification
issued by the appropriate Government (Labour Commissioner, H.P.). The actual date of termination
of the services of the petitioner is 09-02-2004 as per the record. I have no objection, in case, this
reference/claim petition is allowed since the similar matters have already been decided by this
Court and the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The retrenchment of the services of the
petitioner may be set aside. He shall be entitled to the seniority and continuity in service from the
date of the termination i.e. 09-02-2004. The petitioner shall also be entitled to lump-sum amount of
Rs. 35,000/-(Thirty Five Thousand only) to be paid by the department in lieu of the back wages and
compensation etc. The services of the petitioner will be re-engaged after obtaining /receiving the
sanction from the competent authority.
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sd/-
RO & AC
Member
Judge
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
Statement of Shri Vijay Kaundal, adv. counsel for the claimant/petitioner.
Date
12-04-2014
I have heard the above statement made by the respondent and am satisfied with it. The
reference/claim petition may be decided accordingly. As per the compromise, my client has agreed
to receive the compensation of Rs. 35,000/- (instead of Rs. 50,000/-).
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sd/-
RO & AC
Member
Judge
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
2. Ordered accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs.
3. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
4. A copy of this 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:
Bobby Maratha
Rajan Gupta
(Member)
(Judge)
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
_________
IN THE MEGA LOK ADALAT, H.P. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
DHARAMSHALA
Reference No.15/2014
1575
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
Shri Surat Singh s/o late Sh. Mahant Ram, r/o VPO Sari, Tehsil Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi, H.P.
..Petitioner.
vs.
The Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Dharampur, Distt. Mandi, H.P.
..Respondent.
12.4.2014 Present : Shri Vijay Kaundal, Adv. for the petitioner
Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta, Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division,
Dharampur (respondent) with Shri Sanjeev Singh Rana, ADA
AWARD
With the intervention of the Lok Adalat, the parties have compromised. Statements of the
respondent/Executive Engineer and the ld. counsel for the petitioner have been recorded separately.
The same are reproduced below for ready reference:-
St. of Respd.
“In view of the similar matters already decided by this Court and the Hon’ble High Court of
Himachal Pradesh, I have no objection if the instant reference/claim petition is allowed. The
termination of the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 08.07.2005 may be set aside. The petitioner
shall be entitled to the seniority and continuity in service from the date of the termination i.e.
08.07.2005. He (petitioner) will also be entitled to Rs.35,000/- (thirty five thousand only) to
be paid by the department in lieu of the back wages and compensation etc. The services of the
petitioner will be re-engaged after obtaining/receiving the sanction from the competent
authority.
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sd/-
RO&AC
Member
Judge
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
Statement of Shri Vijay Kuandal, adv. counsel for the claimant/petitioner
Date
12.04.2014
I have heard the above statement made by the respondent and am satisfied with it. The
reference/claim petition may be decided accordingly. As per the compromise, my client has agreed
to receive the compensation of Rs.35,000/- (instead of Rs.50,000/-).
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sd/-
RO&AC
Member
udge
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat”
2. Ordered accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs.
3. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
4. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for further necessary action
at its end.
1576
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
5. File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced:
Bobby Maratha
Rajan Gupta
(Member)
(Judge)
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
__________
IN THE MEGA LOK ADALAT, H.P. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
DHARAMSHALA
Reference No.24/2014
Shri Purvia Ram s/o Shri Ram Sai, r/o Village Baral, P.O. Baroti, Tehsil Sarkaghat, Distt.
Mandi, H.P.
..Petitioner.
vs.
The Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Dharampur, Distt. Mandi, H.P.
..Respondent.
12.4.2014 Present : Shri Vijay Kaundal, Adv. for the petitioner
Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta, Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division,
Dharampur (respondent) with Shri Sanjeev Singh Rana, ADA
AWARD
With the intervention of the Lok Adalat, the parties have compromised. Statements of the
respondent/Executive Engineer and the ld. counsel for the petitioner have been recorded separately.
The same are reproduced below for ready reference:-
St. of Respd.
“In view of the similar matters already decided by this Court and the Hon’ble High Court of
Himachal Pradesh, I have no objection if the instant reference/claim petition is allowed. The
termination of the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 08.07.2005 may be set aside. The petitioner shall
be entitled to the seniority and continuity in service from the date of the termination i.e.
08.07.2005. He (petitioner) will also be entitled to Rs.35,000/- (thirty five thousand only) to be paid
by the department in lieu of the back wages and compensation etc. The services of the petitioner
will be re-engaged after obtaining/receiving the sanction from the competent authority.
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sd/-
RO&AC
Member
Judge
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
Statement of Shri Vijay Kuandal, adv. counsel for the claimant/petitioner
Date
12.04.2014
1577
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
I have heard the above statement made by the respondent and am satisfied with it. The
reference/claim petition may be decided accordingly. As per the compromise, my client has agreed
to receive the compensation of Rs.35,000/- (instead of Rs.50,000/-).
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sd/-
RO&AC
Member
Judge
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat”
2. Ordered accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs.
3. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
4. A copy of this 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:
Bobby Maratha
Rajan Gupta
(Member)
(Judge)
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
________
IN THE MEGA LOK ADALAT, H.P. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
DHARAMSHALA
Reference No.215/2013
Shri Beli Ram s/o Shri Nathu Ram, r/o Village Panyala, P.O. Daloh, Tehsil Ghumarwin,
Distt. Bilaspur, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Vs.
The Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Ghumarwin, Distt. Bilaspur, H.P.
..Respondent.
12.4.2014 Present : Sh. S.S. Sippy, AR for the petitioner
Sh. R.C. Verma, Assistant Engineer, HPPWD Sub Division Bharari for the
respondent with Shri Sanjeev Singh Rana, ADA
AWARD
With the intervention of the Lok Adalat, the parties have compromised. Statements of the
respondent/Assistant Engineer and the ld. AR for the petitioner have been recorded separately. The
same are reproduced below for ready reference:-
St. of the Respd.
“In view of the similar matters already decided by this Court and the Hon’ble High Court of
Himachal Pradesh, I have no objection if this reference/claim petition is allowed. The
termination of the services of the petitioner by the department may be set aside. The petitioner
shall be reinstated in service after obtaining/receiving the sanction from the competent
1578
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
authority. He shall be entitled to the seniority and continuity in service from the date/month of
his termination i.e. Sept. 1999 except back wages.
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sd/-
RO & AC
Member
Judge
Statement of Sh. S.S. Sippy, A. R. for the petitioner.
Date
12-04-2014
mijksDr C;ku izfroknh lqu fy;k gS A blls lger gwaA C;kuksa vuqlkj eqdnesa dk QSlyk dj fn;k
tk,A
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sd/-
RO & AC
Member
Judge
2. Ordered accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs.
3. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
4. A copy of this 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:
Bobby Maratha
Rajan Gupta
(Member)
(Judge)
Mega Lok Adalat
Mega Lok Adalat
_________
IN THE COURT OF RAJAN GUPTA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.
Ref No. : 227/2012
Date of Institution : 01.5.2012
Date of Decision : 16.04.2014
Smt. Bhichhi Devi w/o Shri Jai Singh, r/o Village Bhagehar, P.O. Chauntra, Tehsil Joginder
Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Versus
1. The Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Mandi.
2. Secretary, Nagar Panchayat, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.
..Respondents.
Reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
1579
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
For the Petitioner : Sh. N.L. Kaundal, AR
: Sh. Vijay Kaundal, Adv.
For the Respondent No.2 :
Sh. Abhishek Lakhanpal, Adv.
For the Respondent No.1 :
Sh. S.C. Diwedi, Adv.
AWARD
The below given reference has been received from the appropriate Government for
adjudication:
“Whether termination of the services of Smt. Bhichhi Devi W/O Sh. Jai Singh, R/O Village-
Bhagehar, P.O. Chauntra, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. by the i) The Executive
Officer, Municipal Council, Mandi & ii) Secretary, Nagar Panchayat Joginder Nagar, Distt.
Mandi, H.P. from time to time w.e.f. 2001 to 2004 and finally during June, 2004 as alleged by
the workman, is legal and justified? If not, to what amount of back wages, seniority, past
service benefits & compensation the above aggrieved workman is entitled to?”
2. The case of the petitioner (as set out in the statement of claim/demand) is that her services
were engaged as a daily waged beldar on muster roll basis by the respondents in the year 2001. No
appointment letter was issued in her name. She worked as such up-to the month of June, 2004.
During the period of her employment, the respondents gave her the fictional breaks time and again
so that she does not complete 240 days of continuous service as envisaged under Section 25-B of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947, ‘the Act’ for short). Instead of issuing the muster
rolls for the entire month, the respondents provided her the muster rolls for 15 or 16 days every
month. This practice was continued by the respondents up-to the month of June, 2004. Her service
conditions were changed by the respondents without any notice in contravention of the provisions
of Section 9-A of the Act. In the month of June, 2004, her services were finally terminated by the
respondents. Before the disengagement of her services, neither any show cause notice was issued to
her nor an inquiry was conducted for the misconduct, if any. Wages in lieu of the notice period and
the retrenchment compensation were also not paid to her by the respondents. She had completed
more than 240 days of work in the year 2003. At the time of the termination of her services, the
seniority list of daily waged workers was not made available to her by the respondents. The persons
junior to her namely S/Shri Ravi Kant, Rajesh Kumar and Suresh Kumar were retained in service
by the respondents. The latters failed to abide by the principle of ‘last come first go’. Not only this,
after the termination of her services new/fresh hands were engaged by the respondents. She was not
given an opportunity of re-employment. The act and conduct of the respondents is illegal and
unjustified. It is also violative of the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act. The
break period is required to be counted for the purpose of continuous service. From the date/month
of her final termination i.e. June, 2004, she is unemployed.
As such, she (petitioner) prays that the artificial breaks in service given to her by the
respondents as well as the final termination of her services ordered by the respondents in the month
of June, 2004 be upset. The respondents be directed to reinstate her in service with all
consequential benefits including the seniority, continuity in service and payment of the back wages
etc.
3. On notice, the respondents appeared. They filed separate replies controverting the
averments made in the petition/statement of claim. The respondent No.1 in his reply has taken the
preliminary objections to the effect that the petition is bad for mis-joinder of the parties and non
joinder of the necessary parties. The petition is also bad for want of better particulars. The
petitioner be directed to disclose as to on which date, month and year, her services were engaged by
him (respondent No.1).
1580
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
On merits, it has been denied that the services of the petitioner were engaged by him (replying
respondent). As per the record of Municipal Council, Mandi, the services of the petitioner were
never engaged as a beldar. Therefore, the question of giving artificial breaks in service to her or the
retrenchment of her services does not arise. The petitioner never served the Municipal Council,
Mandi. There is no question of the change of her service conditions. S/Shri Ravi Kant, Rajesh
Kumar and Suresh Kumar are not working as daily waged workers under him (respondent No.1).
The petition is meritless.
In these circumstances, the respondent No.1 prays that the instant petition be dismissed with
costs.
4. The respondent No.2 in his reply has raised the preliminary objections to the effect that
the reference/claim petition is misconceived. The petitioner has no locus standi to sue. She did not
complete 240 days of work in any calendar year of her engagement. The petitioner has no cause of
action. The claim petition is not maintainable. The petitioner has not come to the Court with clean
hands. She abandoned the job of her own. The petition is time barred. The petitioner is trying to
rake up the issue which has lapsed with the passage of time.
On merits, it has not been specifically denied that the services of the petitioner were engaged
as a daily waged beldar on muster roll basis in the year 2001 and she served as such up-to the
month of June, 2004. The services of the petitioner were engaged for a specific work. Before the
work could be finished, she left the job. The petitioner was habitual absentee. She did not attend her
duties regularly. The petitioner is estopped from filing the claim petition by her act and conduct.
She cannot be permitted to take the inconsistent pleas contrary to the factual position. Neither any
fictional break in service was provided to the petitioner nor her services were finally terminated as
alleged. No person junior to the petitioner has been retained in service. Even no new /fresh hands
have been employed. No provision of the Act has been flouted. Since the petitioner willingly left
the service, she is not entitled to any protection under the Act.
As such, the respondent No.2 too prays that the petition in hand be dismissed.
5. Rejoinder to the reply of the respondent No.2 has been filed by the petitioner. In it, the
averments made in the claim petition have been reiterated and the objections put forth by the
respondents have been denied. It has been disputed that she left/abandoned the job.
6. Per order dated 09.01.2013, following issues were struck:
1. Whether the termination of the services of the petitioner by the respondents from time
to time w.e.f. the year 2001 to 2004 is illegal and unjustified as alleged?
OPP
2. Whether the final termination of the services of the petitioner by the respondents in
the month of June, 2004 is illegal and unjustified as alleged?
OPP
3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties as alleged. If so, its
effect?
OPR
4. Whether the petitioner has the locus standi to sue?
OPP
5. Whether the petitioner has a cause of action?
OPP
6. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in present form?
OPR
1581
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
7. Whether the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands as alleged. If so, its
effect?
OPR
8. Whether the petition is hit by the vice of delay and laches as alleged. If so, its effect?
OPR
9. Relief.
7. I have heard the ld. counsel/AR for the parties and have gone through the case file.
8. For the reasons detailed here under, my findings on the above issues are as follows:-
Issue No.1 :
No
Issue No.2 :
Yes. However, the services of the petitioner were finally terminated by the
respondent No.2 only.
Issue No.3 :
Not pressed
Issue No.4 :
Yes
Issue No.5 :
Yes
Issue No.6 :
Not pressed
Issue No.7 :
Not pressed
Issue No.8 :
No
Relief. :
Claim petition allowed in part vide operative portion of the Award.
REASONS FOR FINDINGS
ISSUES No.1 AND 2
9. Being interlinked and to avoid the repetition, both these issues are taken up together for
discussion and disposal.
10.
Smt. Bhichhi Devi (petitioner) stepped into the witness box as PW1.y 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 admitted that she never served under the respondent No.1. She
denied that she left the job voluntarily and no person junior to her is serving the respondent No.2.
She also denied that to gain the employment and derive other undue benefits, she has instituted a
phoney petition.
11.
Ex. PW1/B is Proforma-I, whereas, Ex. PW1/C is Proforma-III. Both these documents
have been issued by the respondent No.2. They unfold the names of the daily wagers employed by
the respondent No.2.
12.
No evidence oral or documentary has been adduced by the respondents.
13.
It is the admitted case of the parties that the services of the petitioner were engaged as
a daily wager by the respondent No.2. The mandays chart of the petitioner is not there on the
record. Even her name does not figure in the details of the workmen given in proforma-I (Ex.
PW1/B). The respondent No.2 has not placed/exhibited on the file any document evidencing that
the petitioner was employed for undertaking the specific works only and that too for a
particular/limited period.
1582
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
14.
In paras 1 and 2 of the claim petition, it has been pleaded that artificial breaks in
service were provided to the petitioner from the year of her initial engagement i.e. the year 2001
up-to the month of June, 2004, so that she does not complete 240 days of continuous service. In
subsequent para No.4 of the claim petition, it has been contended that the petitioner had worked for
more than 240 days in the year 2003. The contradictory stand taken by the petitioner is nocuous to
her cause. For the said reason, it cannot be said that intentional breaks in service were provided to
the petitioner by the respondent No.2/employer as alleged.
15.
The version of the petitioner is that in the month of June, 2004, her services were
finally terminated by the respondent No.2 by a verbal order. While denying the said fact, the
respondent No.2 has pleaded that the petitioner was an intermittent worker. She left the job of her
own accord and free volition. It is well known that the abandonment has to be proved like any other
fact by the respondent/employer. Simply because a workman fails to report for duty, it cannot be
presumed that he/she has left/abandoned the job. There is nothing on the record to show that a
notice was served upon the petitioner by the respondent No.2 calling upon her to resume the duties
after she allegedly left the same. Absence from duty is serious misconduct. Admittedly, no
disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by the respondent No.2 for her alleged
willful absence from duty. The plea of abandonment put forth by the respondent No.2/employer is
not established.
16.
As already mentioned, the mandays chart of the petitioner is not there on the file. Due
to this reason, it cannot be said that the petitioner had completed 240 days of work in a block of 12
calendar months preceding the date/month of her termination i.e. June, 2004. The provisions of
Section 25-F of the Act are thus not attracted in this case.
17.
Ex. PW1/B (Proforma-I) depicts that S/Shri Surinder Kumar and Ramesh Kumar were
employed by the respondent No.2 in the year 2003. They are junior to the petitioner whose services
were engaged in the year 2001. Ex. PW1/B clarifies that S/Shri Surinder Kumar and Ramesh
Kumar kept on serving the respondent No.2 even after the year 2004. This indicates that the
respondent No.2 failed to abide by the principle of ‘last come first go’. His action contravenes the
provisions of Section 25-G of the Act.
18.
Not only this, Ex. PW1/B reveals that after the final termination of the services of the
petitioner in the month of June, 2004, new/fresh hands namely Shri Joni Pal and Shri Sohan Lal etc.
were employed by the respondent No.2 in the years 2005 and 2006. There is nothing on the record
to show that at the time of engaging new/fresh hands, an opportunity of re-employment was
afforded to the petitioner by the respondent No.2. This goes to show that the respondent No.2 also
contravened the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act. Needless to say that for deriving the benefit
under Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act, a workman need not complete 240 days of work in a
block of 12 calendar months anterior to the date/month of her termination as envisaged under
Section 25-B of the Act.
19.
Such being the situation, I have no hesitation to conclude that the final termination of
the services of the petitioner by the respondent No.2 in the month of June, 2004 is illegal and
unjustified. No artificial breaks in service were provided to the petitioner by the respondent No.2.
20. These issues are decided accordingly.
ISSUES NO. 3, 6 AND 7
21.
Not pressed.
ISSUES NO. 4 AND 5
1583
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
22.
Taking into account my findings on the issues No.1 and 2 above, it is held that the
petitioner has a cause of action against the respondent No.2. She also has the locus standi to sue.
23.
These issues are decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent No.2
ISSUE NO. 8
24.
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.
25.
In Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division,
Kota versus Mohan Lal, Civil Appeal No. 6795 of 2013, decided on 16th August, 2013, by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the issue regarding delay in raising the industrial dispute by the
workman was discussed. Paras 19 and 20 of the judgment read thus:-
“19. In a subsequent decision in Balbir Singh, this Court observed that Ajaib Singh was
confined to the facts and circumstances of that case. It is true that in Balbir Singh, the plea
of delay was raised before the Industrial Tribunal but we would emphasize the passage
from Balbir Singh where it was said: “Whether relief to the workman should be denied on
the ground of delay or it should be appropriately moulded is at the discretion of the
Tribunal depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt the discretion is
to be exercised judicially.
20.
We are clearly of the view that though Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to
the reference made under the I.D. Act but delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely
an important circumstance which the Labour Court must keep in view at the time of
exercise of discretion irrespective of whether or not such objection has been raised by the
other side. The legal position laid down by this Court in Gitam Singh that before
exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors
including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service,
the ground on which termination has been set aside and the delay in raising industrial
dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute, must be invariably followed.”
26.
In Mohan Lal’s case (cited supra), the workman/petitioner worked as a work-charged
employee for 286 days. The industrial dispute was raised by him after six years of the termination.
1584
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
The Hon’ble Apex Court opined that the interest of justice will be sub-served if in lieu of
reinstatement, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac) is paid to the workman by the employer.
27.
Now comes the all important question as to what relief should be granted/awarded to
the petitioner?
At the time of arguments, the ld. counsel for the respondent No.2/employer did not dispute
the fact that the services of Smt. Mansa Devi and Shri Om Parkash (daily wagers) were also
terminated by his client in the month of June, 2004. Both the workmen namely Smt. Mansa Devi
and Shri Om Parkash have been re-engaged by the respondent No.2 in obedience to the Awards
dated 19.9.2013 passed by this Court. To avoid discrimination amongst the workmen, the petitioner
is also entitled to the reinstatement of her services.
28.
While testifying in the Court as PW1, the petitioner has given her age as 51 years. It is
common knowledge that a 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 back
wages.
29.
This issue is also decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent No.2.
RELIEF (ISSUE NO.9)
30.
As a sequel to my findings on the various issues, the instant claim petition being
meritless and not maintainable against the respondent No.1 fails. The same is dismissed against
him. However, the claim petition succeeds in part and the same is partly allowed against the
respondent No.2. The retrenchment of the petitioner is set aside and quashed. The respondent No.2
is directed to reengage the petitioner forthwith. She shall be entitled to the seniority and continuity
in service from the date/month of her illegal termination i.e. June, 2004 except back wages. Parties
to bear their own costs.
31.
The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
32.
A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the
official gazette.
33.
File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open Court today this 16th day of April, 2014.
(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. : 93/2014
Smt. Jaswant Kaur w/o Shri Nathu Ram, r/o V.P.O. Saloi, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P.
..Petitioner.
1585
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
Versus
1. Shri Suresh Kumar Kaushal, c/o M/S Tigaksha Metallics Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 16, Ram
Nagar, Industrial Area Gagret, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. (Contractor).
2. The Managing Director/Employer, M/S Tigaksha Metallics Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 16, Ram
Nagar, Industrial Area Gagret, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. (Principal employer)
..Respondents.
10-04-2014 Present: None for the petitioner.
Respondent No.1 in person.
Sh. Anil Patial, Sr. Executive for the respondent No.2.
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 knowledge. It is already 2.30
p.m. Even statement of claim/demand has not been filed by the petitioner till date.
2. In view of the aforesaid facts, I have no hesitation to conclude that the petitioner is not
interested to pursue the matter. For want of statement of claim/demand, it cannot be said that
termination of the services of the petitioner by the respondents is illegal and unjustified. 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. : 339/2012
Date of Institution : 25.11.2010
Date of Decision : 16.04.2014
Smt. Budhi Devi w/o Shri Lehnu Ram, r/o Village Gadiyara, P.O. Khadihar, Tehsil Joginder
Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Versus
1. State of H.P. through its Secretary (Forests) to the Govt. of H.P. Shimla.
2. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, H.P. Shimla.
1586
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
3. Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.
..Respondents.
Reference/Direct Claim Petition under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947.
For the Petitioner :
Sh. N.L. Kaundal, AR
:
Sh. Vijay Kaundal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) :
Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, ADA
AWARD
This is a direct claim petition preferred under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, as amended up-to date (‘the Act’ for short).
2. The case of the petitioner (as set out in the statement of claim/demand) reads thus:
“1. That the services of applicant had been engaged by the respondent no 3 on daily waged
basis on muster roll in the month of March 1998 without any appointment order but she had been
given the artificial/fictional breaks from her services from time to time up to August, 2009. The
applicant had been given the breaks for 95 days in the year 1998, 167=1999, 172=2000, 220=2001,
146=2002, 198=2003, 264=2004, 208=2005, 243=2006, 264=2007, 324=2008, 85=2009. These
breaks have been given by the respondent no 3 intentionally to not letting to complete 240 days in
each calendar years.
2. That the applicant had been filed the O.A. No 68 of 2001 before the H.P. Administrative
Tribunal on 04-10-2001. The Hon’ble Tribunal has directed to State/Respondents to reengage the
applicant herein at the same place or in the vicinity of thereof, from where their services were
terminated. The respondent has assailed the order of the H.P. Administrative Tribunal and filed a
CWP bearing no 1673 of 2002 before the Hon’ble H.P. High Court. The same was dismissed
having been withdrawn on 02-12-2002. And respondent again filed the review petition against the
judgment dated 04-10-2010 and the same has been dismissed by the Hon’ble H.P. High Court dated
16-07-2010.
3. That it is specifically stated here that during the pendency of this case before the Hon’ble
H.P. Administrative Tribunal and Hon’ble High Court the services of applicant have been engaged
and disengaged without any specific reason in writing and the services of applicant has been finally
terminated by the respondent no 3 w.e.f. 01-09-2009.
4. That before terminating her services by the respondent she has not given any show cause
notice in writing, neither charge-sheet had been issued to her against her alleged misconduct nor the
one month pay in lieu of notice period and retrenchment compensation under section 25-F has also
not paid to her at the time of alleged termination i.e. 01-09-2009 and without complying the same
every termination is null, void and ab-initio.
5. That the person who were filed the O.A. 68/2001 along with applicant before the
Administrative Tribunal namely Smt. Brahmi Devi W/o Bidhi Chand, Smt. Nirmla Devi W/o Late
Sh Dulo Ram, Smt. Krishna Devi W/o Sh Naradhu Ram and Sh Amar Singh S/o Sh Param Singh
were regularly engaged by the respondent no 3 from 2001 to onwards and they have not been given
any artificial breaks but the services of applicant have been engaged and disengaged time to time
for not letting to complete 240 days for the purpose of her regularization as per the policy framed
by the state government from time to time.
1587
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
6. That at the time of her unlawful termination vide verbal order by the respondents dated
01-09-2009 the persons junior to her retained in service namely Sh Kali Dass S/o Sh Manglu Ram
R/o Village Ropadu, P.O. Padhwan, Tehsil Padhar, District Mandi, H.P. (July 1998), Prem Chand
S/o Sh Sardaru Ram R/o VPO Jalpehar, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, Distt Mandi, H.P. (2005) and some
of the daily wager have been retained on muster roll in division level and their services have also
been engaged and disengaged and the same has been violated under Section 25-G and 25-H of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
7. That at the time of her engagement and disengagement from her services by the
respondent no 3 the work and funds were available in the department whereas junior workmen are
retained in service the respondents cannot be say the works and funds were not available.
8. That the act of the respondent to given the fictional breaks to the applicant for the period
mentioned above is unfair labour practice and deprived her in permanent status and the same has
been violated in the fifth schedule clause 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the same has
also been violated under section 25-T and 25-U read with section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947.
9. That the act of the respondents to given the fictional breaks to the applicant from time to
time and finally terminated her services w.e.f. 01-09-2009 is highly unjustified, arbitrary, contrary,
unconstitutional and against the mandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the
illegal termination order of the applicant may be set aside on the above ground.
10.
That it is categorically submitted here that the applicant was unemployed during her
breaks period and still unemployed and not gainfully employed any where from the date of her
alleged termination dated 01-09-2009 and he is entitled for full back wages.
Relief:
It is therefore prayed in view of the aforesaid submissions made here in above the Hon’ble
Court may kindly be allow the direct claim petition of the applicant and granted the following relief
in the favour of applicant.
(i) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be set aside the unlawful termination order dated 01-09-
2009 and directed to respondents to reinstate the services of applicant with full back
wages, in continuity of service with seniority and all other consequential service benefits
throughout.
(ii) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be set aside the unlawful break period of fictional breaks
for the period from March, 1998 to August, 2009 and directed to respondents to pay the
wages of break period and the period be condone in her continuity of service, seniority
and all other purposes including regularization”.
3. On notice, the respondents appeared. They filed joint reply controverting the averments
made in the petition/statement of claim. Preliminary objections have been taken to the effect that
the petition is not maintainable in the present form since no fundamental right of the petitioner has
been infringed. The petition is hit by the vice of delay and laches. The claim petition has become
in-fructuous since the claimant/petitioner served under them (respondents) up-to the month of
August, 2011 i.e. beyond September, 2009. The petitioner has misrepresented herself. She has
approached the Court by concealing the material facts. The petitioner is estopped from filing the
claim petition by her act and conduct.
1588
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
On merits, paras 1 to 10 of the reply are reproduced below verbatim for ready reference:-
“1. That the contents of this para of the claim petition are not disputed as long as they pertains
with engagement of the applicant w.e.f. March, 1998. However the petitioner had worked
intermittently as per her convenience, moreover the forestry works generally depend upon the
availability of work and budget and are of seasonal in nature and labourers are being engaged
on the availability of works & funds and disengaged when the funds are exhausted. So the
contents of the para that the respondent No.3 had intentionally given the artificial/fictional
breaks not letting the applicant to complete 240 days in each calendar year are incorrect and
hence denied. The mandays chart of the applicant is being attached as annexure R-I.
2. That the contents of this para are admitted. However no relief has been given by the
Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.68/2001 Brahmi Devi &
others V/s State decided on dated 04.10.2001 to the applicant. Copy of the order is being attached
Annexure R-II, along with the copy of the O.A. as Annexure R-III.
3. That the content of this para are wrong hence denied. As submitted in para above Hon’ble
Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal has not granted any relief to the applicant.
However the applicant was again engaged on seasonal forestry works w.e.f. 10/2001 as per
availability of works and fund by the replying respondent. The work was provided to the applicant
after she had made herself available for such seasonal works like nursery work, Soil Conservation
works and pitting and planting works during this period. The replying respondents had provided the
work for whole of the month in particular month, in which applicant had worked with the replying
respondent, which is also evident from the manday chart annexure R-I. However the applicant
being intermittent worker had absented herself during the course of her engagement and use to
report for duty as per own convenience and sweet will.
It is pertinent to mention here that w.e.f. 01.09.2009 to 30.06.2011 the applicant has all
together stopped to report for duty and thereafter again got reengaged w.e.f. 07/2011 and left the
job w.e.f. 08/2011. Thus the present claim of the applicant for her termination w.e.f. 01.09.2009 has
become infructuos. No fundamental right of the applicant had been infringed in any manner by the
replying respondent.
4. That the contents of para-4 are wrong, hence denied. The detailed reply has already been
given in para-3 above. It is however, submitted that the replying respondent own their part had
provided the work to the applicant as and when she has reported for duty. As much as vide notice
dated 01.07.2012 the applicant was again called for seasonal forestry work by B.O. Langna through
Forest Guard Langna & Sh Inder Singh Forest Worker. The copy of notice is enclosed as annexure
R-IV. However in pursuant to the notice Annexure R-IV, the applicant had not reported for duty.
5. That the contents of the para-5 of claim petition are wrong, hence denied. The mandays of
the workmen mentioned in this para are being annexed as annexure R-V. Above workmen are also
engaged on seasonal forestry works as is the case of the applicant. It is further submitted that on
account of the order of Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal dated 04.10.2011,
the copy of which has been placed as annexure R-II the applicant is debarred from claiming parity
with workmen mentioned in this para.
6. That the contents of this para are also wrong, hence denied. It is submitted that as per
record of this office no junior workmen have been retained in service. Sh Kali Dass S/o Sh Manglu
Ram R/o Village Ropadu P.O. Padhwan, Tehsil Padhar, Distt. Mandi have been engaged on work
on 01.02.1995 and had worked for 243 days during the year 1995 whereas Sh Prem Chand S/o Sh
Sardaru Ram R/o VPO Jalpehar Tehsil Joginder Nagar was engaged on casual labour during
1589
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
09/1990. Thus the question of violation of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 does not arise at all. No daily wager junior to applicant was retained on work by the
respondent. The mandays of above workmen are being placed as annexure R-VI.
7. That the contents of this para are wrong, hence denied as per submission made in paras
above the forestry works are seasonal in nature and the casual labour is engaged only when work
and funds are available with the department and no daily wager junior to applicant was retained on
work by the respondent. The casual labour is being regulated on the principal last to come and first
to go.
8. That the contents of this para are wrong, hence denied. It is wrongly alleged that the
replying respondent are indulging in unfair labour practice relating to the applicant, rather the
applicant herself absented due to own act and conduct and has preferred the present dispute at a
belated stage. A detailed reply has been given in para above. The replying respondent had not
violated any provision of Industrial dispute Act mentioned in this para.
9. That the contents of this para are wrong, hence denied. On account of continuity of
service beyond 01.09.2009 the present dispute has become infructuos. Further the applicant has not
adhered to the mandatory provision of Section 2-A of Industrial dispute Act with regard to her
disengagement.
10.
That the contents of this para are wrong, hence denied. It is submitted that the
petitioner is gainfully employed for her livelihood as agriculturist and further dependent upon her
husband who is a retired employee of H.P.P.W.D.”
In these circumstances, the respondents pray that the petition in hand being meritless 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 respondents. It has been pleaded that the forestry works
are not seasonal in nature. The State Government has not declared the forest department as a
seasonal industry. No show cause notice was ever issued to her regarding her alleged willful
absence from duties. She never worked with the respondents after September, 2009. The mandays
chart of Shri Prem Chand s/o Shri Sardaru Ram has not been produced by the respondents.
5. Per order dated 08.4.2013, following issues were struck:
1. Whether the termination of the services of the petitioner by the respondents w.e.f. 01-
09-2009 is illegal and unjustified as alleged.
OPP
2. Whether the fictional breaks given by the respondents to the petitioner from March,
1998 to August, 2009 are/were illegal and unjustified as alleged?
OPP
3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form?
OPR
4. Whether the petitioner has concealed the true and material facts from the Court as
alleged. If so, its effect?
OPR
5. Whether the petition is hit by the vice of delay and laches as alleged. If so, its effect?
OPR
6. Whether the petition has become in-fructuous as alleged. If so, its effect?
OPR
1590
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
7. Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the claim petition by her act and
conduct as alleged?
OPR
8. Relief
6. At this stage, I will like to highlight that the demand notice dated 16.4.2009 and
supplementary demand notice dated 12.11.2009 were served upon the respondents by the
petitioner/workman. Since no reference/notification was issued by the appropriate Government, the
direct claim petition was instituted by the petitioner.
7. I have heard the ld. counsel/AR for the parties and have gone through the case file.
8. For the reasons detailed here under, my findings on the above issues are as follows:-
Issue No.1 :
No
Issue No.2 :
Not pressed (See order dated 01.4.2014)
Issue No.3 :
Yes
Issue No.4 :
Yes
Issue No.5 :
No
Issue No.6 :
Not pressed
Issue No.7 :
Not pressed
Relief. :
Claim petition dismissed vide operative portion of the Award.
REASONS FOR FINDINGS
ISSUES NO. 1, 3 AND 4
9. Being interlinked and to avoid the repetition, all these issues are taken up together for
discussion and disposal.
10.
Smt. Budhi 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 admitted that she has raised the present industrial dispute
regarding the fictional breaks in service and the final termination of her services on 01.9.2009. She
also admitted that she had worked with the respondents for two months in the year 2011. Self
stated, she did not serve the respondents after the filing of this case. She admitted that in the month
of July, 2012, notice Ex. R1 was sent to her by the department calling upon her to resume the
duties. She also admitted that she conveyed to the Forest Guard who approached her with the notice
Ex.R1 that she will not report for duty until and unless her case is decided by the Court. She denied
that in the months of July and August, 2011, she served the respondents on bill voucher basis as
well as the vouchers Mark-B (later on exhibited as Ex. RW1/I) and Mark-C (later on exhibited as
Ex. RW1/J) bear her signatures. Volunteered, the payment was made to her for the work done
earlier where-after she signed the vouchers. She denied that the work in the forest department is
mostly seasonal and at the time of the engagement of her services, it was conveyed to her that the
work for the whole year cannot be provided to her. She cannot say that the mandays chart Ex. R2 is
correct or not. She is not aware of the fact that after the inquiry, it surfaced that the facts disclosed
in the letter Mark-A (corresponding to Ex. PA) are incorrect. Earlier, she had preferred a case
regarding the artificial breaks before the Hon’ble Administrative Tribunal. She feigned ignorance
about the fact that the Original Application preferred by her was dismissed by the Hon’ble
Administrative Tribunal. She denied that her services were engaged for seasonal forestry works
1591
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
only and she used to be called to discharge her duties as and when the work was available. She
refuted that she used to work as per her sweet will and convenience as well as Shri Amar Singh etc.
served the department continuously. She denied that to gain the employment in a wrongful manner
and derive other undue benefits, she has instituted a phoney petition.
11.
Conversely, Shri Rajeev Kumar, Divisional Forest Officer, Joginder Nagar
(respondent No.3) testified as RW1. He corroborated on oath the contents of the reply filed by him.
In the cross-examination, he denied that the services of the petitioner were disengaged on
01.9.2009 in an illegal manner and the petitioner never served the department after August, 2009.
12.
Ex. RW1/A is the mandays chart relating to the petitioner.
13.
Ex. RW1/B is the copy of the order dated 04.10.2001 passed by the Hon’ble
Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.68/2001 titled as Smt. Bramhi Devi and four others versus
State of H.P. through the Secretary (Forest) and others.
14.
Ex. RW1/C is the copy of the Original Application No.68/2001 instituted by Smt.
Bramhi Devi etc. before the Hon’ble Administrative Tribunal. In the Original Application, the
petitioner Smt. Budhi Devi was the applicant No.3. 15. Exts. RW1/D to H are the mandays charts
of Shri Kali Dass, Smt. Brahmi Devi, Smt. Krishana Devi, Shri Amar Singh and Smt. Nirmla Devi,
working under the respondent No.3.
16.
Ex. PB is also the mandays chart pertaining to the petitioner.
17.
Ex. PC is the notice which was sent to the petitioner by the Range Forest Officer,
Langna calling upon her to resume the duties. It corresponds to Ex. R1. The claimant/petitioner has
admitted that the notice was received by her. However, she told the Range Forest Officer, who
approached her along-with the notice that she will report for duty only after her case is decided by
the Court.
18.
It is the admitted case of the parties that the services of the petitioner were engaged as
a daily wager in the month of March, 1998. The said fact finds support from the mandays charts
(Ex. R-2 and Ex. RW1/A) relating to the petitioner which are there on the record.
19.
The respondents have not placed/exhibited on the file any document evidencing that
the services of the petitioner were engaged for undertaking the seasonal forestry works only to her
knowledge. Otherwise too, the mandays chart Ex. RW1/A clarifies that from 01.1.2003 to
31.12.2003, the work for more than 240 days in a calendar year was provided to the petitioner by
the respondents. Of course, the petitioner served for only 177 days. A person who is given the work
for more than 240 days in a calendar year, cannot be termed as a seasonal worker
by any stretch of imagination.
20.
As already mentioned, issue No.2 regarding the artificial/fictional breaks in service
allegedly provided to the petitioner by the respondents from the date/month of her initial
engagement i.e. March, 1998 to the date/month of the alleged final termination of her services i.e.
August, 2009 has not been pressed.
21.
Now comes the all important question as to whether the services of the petitioner were
finally terminated by the respondents on 01.9.2009 (as claimed) or not?
The version of the petitioner is that her services were unlawfully disengaged by the
respondents on 01.9.2009. While denying the said fact, the respondents have pleaded that the
1592
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
petitioner was an intermittent worker. She used to report for duty as per her convenience. From
01.9.2009 to 30.6.2011, the petitioner did not report for duty and abandoned the job. Thereafter, she
reported for duty in the month of July, 2011 as well as served during the months of July and
August, 2011. After that she again left the job of her own accord and free volition.
22.
It is well known that the abandonment has to be proved like any other fact by the
respondent/employer. Simply because a workman fails to report for duty, it cannot be presumed
that he/she has left/abandoned the job. There is nothing on the record to show that a notice was
served upon the petitioner by the respondents calling upon her to resume the duties after she
allegedly left the same. The notice Ex. R1 (corresponding to Ex. PC) was served upon the
petitioner by the respondents on 01.7.2012 i.e. during the pendency of this case. Absence from duty
is serious misconduct. Admittedly, no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner
by the respondents for her alleged willful absence from duty. The plea of abandonment put forth by
the respondents is not established.
23.
There is no cogent and convincing evidence on the record to show that the mandays
charts Ex. R2 and Ex. RW1/A produced by the respondents are incorrect. Their perusal discloses
that the petitioner had served the respondents in the months of July and August, 2011 as well.
During these two months, the petitioner worked on bill voucher basis as is evident from Exts.
RW1/I and J. During her cross-examination the petitioner (PW1) initially stated that the bill
vouchers Exts. RW1/I and J do not bear her signatures. Subsequently, she volunteered that the
payment was made by the respondents for the work done previously where-after she appended her
signatures. This admission made by the petitioner goes to show that she had worked under the
respondents on bill basis in the months of July and August, 2011 as well as received the payment
for the work done by her. In view of these facts, I am at a loss to understand as to how it lies in the
mouth of the petitioner to canvass that her services were finally terminated w.e.f. 01.9.2009. The
working pattern of the petitioner as disclosed by the mandays charts makes it abundantly clear that
she was an intermittent worker, who used to work as per her convenience.
24.
Otherwise also, in para 2 of the claim petition, the petitioner has pleaded that she had
instituted Original Application No.68/2001 before the erstwhile Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal. The said Original Application was decided by the Hon’ble Administrative
Tribunal on 04.10.2001. The Hon’ble Administrative Tribunal had directed the State/respondents to
reengage her (petitioner’s) services at the same place or in the vicinity from where her services
were terminated. Browsing of Exts. RW1/B and C reveals that in the Original Application No.68 of
2001, the petitioner Smt. Budhi Devi was the applicant No.3 before the Hon’ble Administrative
Tribunal. In-fact, per order dated October 4, 2001, the copy of which is Ex. RW1/B, no relief was
granted to the petitioner/applicant No.3 by the Hon’ble Administrative Tribunal. This goes to show
that the petitioner is telling nothing else except a bundle of lies. She has concealed the true and
material facts from the Court. Her act and conduct disentitles her to the relief(s) claimed.
25.
Such being the situation, I have no hesitation to conclude that the claim petition is not
maintainable. The petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands because of which she is
required to be non-suited. Her services were not finally terminated by the respondents on 01.9.2009
as alleged. It appears to me that the avarice of the petitioner to grab the Government job and money
forced her to prefer a totally false and baseless claim.
26.
These issues are decided against the petitioner and in favour of her adversaries.
ISSUES NO.2,6 AND 7
27.
Not pressed.
1593
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
ISSUE NO. 5
28.
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.
29.
This issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF (ISSUE NO.8)
30.
As a sequel to my findings on the issues No. 1, 3 and 4 above, the instant claim
petition being meritless, not maintainable and malafide fails. It is, therefore, dismissed. Parties to
bear their own costs.
31.
The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
32.
A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the
official gazette.
33.
File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open Court today this 16th day of April, 2014.
(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. : 57/2013
Sh. Maghu Ram s/o Sh. Manas Das, r/o Village & P.O. Mindhal, Tehsil Pangi, Distt.
Chamba, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Versus
The Divisional Forest Officer, Killar, Distt. Chamba, H.P.
..Respondent.
1594
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
17-04-2014 Present : Petitioner with Sh. Rohit Singh, Adv.
Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, D.D.A. for the respondent.
One PW recorded. At this stage, the claimant/petitioner has given a separate statement that he
does not want to proceed with the instant claim petition/reference and it be dismissed as withdrawn.
2. 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. 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. : 11/2014
Sh. Nathu Ram s/o Late Shri Babu Ram, V.P.O. Taloi, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Versus
The Managing Director/Employer, M/S Tigaksha Metallics Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 16, Ram
Nagar, Industrial Area Gagret, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P.
..Respondent.
29-04-2014 Present : None for the petitioner.
Sh. Rajesh Kosh, Law Officer 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
2.40 p.m. This indicates that the petitioner is not interested to pursue the matter. For want of
statement of claim/demand, it cannot be said that termination of the services of the petitioner by the
respondent is illegal and unjustified. Parties to bear their own costs.
2. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
3. A copy of this Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for further necessary
action at its end.
1595
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
4. 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. : 103/2014
Sh. Yash Pal s/o Shri Telu Ram, r/o Village Bhatoli, Tehsil & District Una, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Versus
The Employer/Factory Manager, M/S A.K. Industries, Plot No. 124, Industrial Area
Mehatpur, Tehsil & District Una, H.P.
..Respondent.
29-04-2014 Present : Sh. Vijay Kaundal, Adv. csl. for the petitioner.
Sh. Deepak Dhacholia, Manager for the respondent.
Ld. csl. for the claimant/petitioner has made the below given statement in the Court today:-
“ The matter has been compromised. In view of the affidavit (copy mark-A) sworn by my
client, I do not want to proceed with this reference. It be dismissed as
withdrawn/compromised.
RO & AC
P.J.”
Sd/-
29-04-2014
2. 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. Be consigned to the Records after due completion.
Announced:
(RAJAN GUPTA),
Presiding Judge,
Labour Court-cum-Industrial
Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P.
1596
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
IN THE COURT OF RAJAN GUPTA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.
Ref: No. : 45/2013
Sh. Ghanshyam s/o Sh. Madan, r/o Village Baragat, P.O. Behli, Sub Tehsil Nihri, Distt.
Mandi,H.P.
..Petitioner.
Versus
The Divisional Forest Officer, Suket Forest Division, Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P.
..Respondent.
30-04-2014 Present : Sh. S.S.Sippy, A.R. for the petitioner.
Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, D.D.A. for the respondent.
The case is listed for final arguments, but the ld. Authorised Representative for the
claimant/petitioner has made the below given statement in the Court today:-
“ I do not want to proceed with this reference/claim petition . It be dismissed as withdrawn.
My client will issue a fresh demand notice to the respondent for the redressal of his grievances.
RO & AC
P.J.”
Sd/-
30-04-2014
2. 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. 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. : 58/2014
Sh. Jai Singh s/o Shri Vishnu Ram, r/o Village Mehar, P.O. Basona, Tehsil Joginder Nagar,
District Mandi, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Versus
1597
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
The Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.
..Respondent.
01-05-2014 Present : None for the petitioner.
Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, D.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. This indicates that the claimant/petitioner is not interested to pursue the matter. For want of
statement of claim/demand, it cannot be said that time to time termination of the services of the
petitioner by the respondent (as per the reference) is/was illegal and unjustified. Parties to bear their
own costs.
2. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
3. A copy of this Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for further necessary
action at its end.
4. 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. : 118/2013
Pradhan/General Secretary, H.P. State Handicrafts and Handloom Corporation Workers
Union, Rang Mahal, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh.
..Petitioner.
Versus
1. The Managing Director, H.P. State Handicrafts and Handloom Corporation, Kasumpti,
Shimla-9.
2. The Manager, H.P. State Handicrafts and Handloom Corporation Rang Mahal, Chamba,
H.P.
..Respondents.
01-05-2014 Present : Smt. Vidhya Devi, Pradhan of the Workers union and Sh. Ramesh Kumar,
General Secretary of the Workers union with Sh. Jitender Sharma, Adv.
Sh. Vivek Vashisht, Adv. csl. for the respondents.
The case is listed for final arguments today, but an application under Order 23 Rule 1 C.P.C.
for withdrawal of the reference/claim petition with permission to file a fresh one on the same cause
of action has been moved by the applicant/petitioner union. The said application is allowed in view
1598
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
of the reasons recorded therein and being not opposed. Consequently, the reference and claim
petition are dismissed as withdrawn. It is clarified that the applicant/petitioner union will be at
liberty to issue a fresh demand notice and prefer fresh claim petition for the redressal of its
grievances. Parties to bear their own costs.
2. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
3. A copy of this Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for further necessary
action at its end.
4. 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-
CUMINDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.
Ref No. : 50/2013
Date of Institution : 13.06.2013
Date of Decision : 01.05.2014
Shri Mohan Lal s/o Shri Gurdayal, r/o Village Hugal, P.O. Karias, Tehsil Pangi, District
Chamba, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Versus
The Executive Engineer, Killar Division, HPPWD, Killar, District Chamba, 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.
:
Sh. R.K. Bhardwaj, Adv.
For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A.
AWARD
The below given reference has been received from the appropriate Government for
adjudication:
“Whether termination of the services of Shri Mohan Lal S/O Shri Gurdayal, R/O Village
Hugal, P.O. Karias, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. w.e.f. October 2008 by The
Executive Engineer, Killar Division, HPPWD, Killar, District Chamba, H.P. without
complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If
not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above
worker is entitled to form the above employer?”
1599
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
2. The case of the petitioner (as set out in the statement of claim/demand) is that his services
were engaged as a daily wager on muster roll basis by the respondent in the month of July, 2002.
He worked as such up-to the month of October, 2008 under the Assistant Engineer, Store Sub
Division, HPPWD, Shour (Pangi). During the period of employment, his services were engaged
and disengaged by the respondent despite the availability of the work and the funds. Artificial
breaks in service were provided by the respondent so that he (petitioner) does not complete 160
days of work (Pangi is tribal area) in each and every calendar year for the purpose of the
regularization of his services. The persons junior to him were provided continuous work by the
respondent which amounts to unfair labour practice. In the month of October, 2008, his services
were finally terminated by the respondent. Before the disengagement of his services, neither any
notice was given to him nor an inquiry was conducted against him. One month pay in lieu of the
notice period and the retrenchment compensation were also not paid by the respondent/department.
At the time of the retrenchment of his services, the persons junior to him namely Shri Jeet Singh
and Smt. Janto Devi etc. were retained in service by the respondent. The latter failed to abide by the
principle of ‘last come first go’. Not only this, after the termination of his services new/fresh hands
were engaged by the respondent.2 The names of the newly appointed persons are S/Sh. Ram Singh
and Dev Raj etc. He was not given an opportunity of re-employment. The services of the persons
junior to him viz. Shri Jeet Singh and Smt. Bimlo Devi etc. have alreadybeen regularized by the
respondent as per the policy of the State. He (petitioner) is also entitled to the regularization of his
services after completion of eight years service in the regular pay scale. The break period is
required to be counted for the purpose of continuous service. From the date of his final termination,
he is unemployed. Demand notice dated 26.8.2011 served upon the respondent did not have the
desired effect. The act and conduct of the respondent is illegal and unjustified. It is also violative of
the provisions 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, the petitioner has claimed the following
relief(s) in this case:-
“1. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be set aside the illegal termination order w.e.f.
October, 2008 and directed to respondent to reinstate the services of applicant with
full back wages, seniority, in continuity of service along with all consequential service
benefits throughout.
2. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be again directed to respondent to regularize the
services of applicant after completion of 10 years continuous service as per the policy
of Mool Raj Upadhaya.
3. Any other relief the Hon’ble Court may deem fit may kindly be granted in the favour
of applicant and against the respondent”.
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.
On merits, it has been owned that the services of the petitioner were engaged as a daily wager
in the month of July, 2002. However, it has been pleaded that neither any artificial break in service
was provided to the petitioner/workman nor his services were finally terminated as alleged.
Actually, the petitioner was an intermittent worker. He used to report for duty as per his
convenience because of which he could not complete 160 days of continuous service. In the month
of October, 2008, the petitioner left the job voluntarily. Since the petitioner abandoned the job, he
1600
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
is not entitled to any protection under the Act. No person junior to the petitioner has been retained
in service. Even no new/fresh hands have been appointed. The persons, whose names have been
disclosed by the petitioner in para No.4 of the claim petition, were appointed on compassionate
grounds. He (respondent) did not indulge in any unfair labour practice. No provision of the Act has
been flouted. The petitioner is not entitled to the regularization of his services as claimed. He is
gainfully employed as an agriculturist. The petition is meritless.
In these circumstances, the respondent prays that the petition in hand be dismissed.
4. No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner.
5. Per order dated 16.11.2013, following issues were struck.
1. Whether the termination of the services of the petitioner by the respondent in the
month of October, 2008 is illegal and unjustified as alleged?
OPP
2. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form?
OPR
3. Whether the petition is hit by the vice of delay and laches as alleged. If so, its effect?
OPR
4. 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
Relief. :
Claim petition allowed in part vide operative portion of the Award.
REASONS FOR FINDINGS
ISSUE NO.1
8. The petitioner Shri Mohal Lal 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 denied that he used to absent from his duties as per his
convenience. He also denied that he left the service willingly in the month of October, 2008.
Further, he denied that no person junior to him is serving the respondent/department and the instant
industrial dispute has been raised by him at a belated stage.
9. Conversely, Shri M.P. Dhiman, Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Division Killar-Pangi
(respondent) testified as RW1. He corroborated on oath the contents of the reply filed by him.
In the cross-examination, he admitted that after the petitioner left the job, no notice was given
to him asking him to resume his duties. Even no departmental proceedings were initiated against
the petitioner. He denied that he has given a phoney statement.
10.
Ex. PW1/B is the copy of the seniority list of daily waged workers upto 31.12.2009 in
respect of Killar Sub Division No.1, HPPWD, Killar (Pangi).
1601
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
11.
Ex. RW1/A is the mandays chart relating to the petitioner.
12.
No reference has been received from the appropriate Government regarding providing
the artificial/fictional breaks in service to the petitioner by the respondent during the course of the
employment as alleged. Therefore, the said controversy, if any, between the parties cannot be
looked into by this Court being beyond the terms of the reference as per the mandate of Section
10(4) of the Act.
13.
It is the admitted case of the parties that the services of the petitioner were engaged as
a daily wager in the month of July, 2002 and he worked as such up-to the month of October, 2008.
The version of the petitioner is that in the month of October, 2008, his services were finally
terminated by the respondent wrongly and illegally. While denying the said fact, the respondent has
pleaded that the petitioner was an intermittent worker. He used to work as per his convenience. In
the month of October, 2008, the petitioner left the job of his own accord and free volition.
14.
It is well known that the abandonment has to be proved like any other fact by the
respondent/employer. Simply because a workman fails to report for duty, it cannot be presumed
that he has left/abandoned the job. It is there in the statement of the respondent (RW1) that no
notice was given to the petitioner calling upon him to resume his duties after he allegedly left the
same. Absence from duty is serious misconduct. Admittedly, no disciplinary proceedings were
initiated against the petitioner by the respondent for his alleged willful absence from duty. The plea
of abandonment put forth by the respondent is not established.
15.
It is not the case of the petitioner that the mandays chart Ex. RW1/A produced by the
respondent is incorrect. Its perusal discloses that the petitioner did not complete 160 days of work
in a block of 12 calendar months preceding the date/month of his termination i.e. October, 2008 as
envisaged under Section 25-B of the Act. The provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are thus not
attracted in this case.
16.
Ex. PW1/B viz. the copy of the seniority list unfolds that Shri Dev Raj was appointed
by the respondent in the year 2005, whereas, Sh. Ram Singh s/o Shri Prem Lal and Shri Ram Singh
s/o Shri Bir Chand were appointed by the respondent in the year 2006. They are/were junior to the
petitioner whose services were engaged in the month of July, 2002. These three workers served the
respondent/department in the year 2009 i.e. after the disengagement of the services of the
petitioner. This indicates that the respondent failed to abide by the principle of ‘last come first go’.
His action thus contravenes the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act.
17.
Not only this, Ex. PW1/B reveals that one Shri Mohinder Singh was appointed by the
respondent as a beldar in the year 2009 i.e. after the termination of the services of the petitioner in
the month of October, 2008. There is nothing on the record to show that at the time of engaging
new/fresh hands, an opportunity of re-employment was afforded to the petitioner by the respondent.
That being so, it can be safely said that the respondent has also flouted the provisions of Section
25-H of the Act. Needless to say that for deriving the benefit under Sections 25-G and 25-H of the
Act, a workman need not complete 160 days of work in a block of 12 calendar months anterior to
the date/month of his termination.
18.
Such being the situation, I have no hesitation to conclude that the termination of the
services of the petitioner by the respondent is illegal and unjustified.
19.
This issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
ISSUE NO. 2
1602
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
20.
Not pressed
ISSUE NO.3
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 Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division,
Kota versus Mohan Lal, Civil Appeal No. 6795 of 2013, decided on 16th August, 2013, by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the issue regarding delay in raising the industrial dispute by the
workman was discussed. Paras 19 and 20 of the judgment read thus:-
“19.
In a subsequent decision in Balbir Singh, this Court observed that Ajaib Singh was
confined to the facts and circumstances of that case. It is true that in Balbir Singh, the plea
of delay was raised before the Industrial Tribunal but we would emphasize the passage
from Balbir Singh where it was said: “Whether relief to the workman should be denied on
the ground of delay or it should be appropriately moulded is at the discretion of the
Tribunal depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt the discretion is
to be exercised judicially.
20.
We are clearly of the view that though Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to
the reference made under the I.D. Act but delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely
an important circumstance which the Labour Court must keep in view at the time of
exercise of discretion irrespective of whether or not such objection has been raised by the
other side. The legal position laid down by this Court in Gitam Singh that before
exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors
including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service,
the ground on which termination has been set aside and the delay in raising industrial
dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute, must be invariably followed.”
23.
In Mohan Lal’s case (cited supra), the workman/petitioner worked as a work-charged
employee for 286 days. The industrial dispute was raised by him after six years of the termination.
The Hon’ble Apex Court opined that the interest of justice will be sub-served if in lieu of
reinstatement, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac) is paid to the workman by the employer.
24.
Now comes the all important question as to what relief should be granted/awarded to
the petitioner?
1603
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
The record shows that the petitioner was appointed as a daily waged beldar in the month of
July, 2002 and he served the respondent/department intermittently up-to the month of October,
2008. In the years 2004 and 2005, the petitioner served for less than 100 days whereas in the year
2007 he did not work for a single day. The disengagement of the services of the petitioner has been
held to be bad in the eyes of law in view of the provisions contained in Sections 25-G and 25-H of
the Act. In the statement of claim/demand, the petitioner has mentioned that the demand notice
dated 26.8.2011 was served upon the respondent by him. The copy of demand notice has not been
placed/exhibited on the file. In accordance with the pleadings, the demand notice was given to the
respondent by the petitioner almost three years after the termination in question.
25.
To my thinking, the petitioner (Shri Mohan Lal) is not entitled to the reinstatement of
his services keeping in view all the relevant factors including the mode and manner of his
appointment, nature of the employment and the length of service etc., more so, when he worked for
less than 100 days in the years 2004 and 2005 as well as did not work for a single day in the year
2007. In none of the calendar years, the petitioner completed 160 or more days of work. While
deposing in the Court as PW1, the petitioner has given his age as 45 years. In the cross-
examination, he admitted that he earns his livelihood by doing the work of agriculture. It is
common knowledge that a young man like the petitioner will not sit at home during the period he
is/was out of the job. The petitioner has failed to discharge the initial onus that during the period of
his forced idleness, he was not gainfully employed.
26.
Taking into consideration the above noted facts and the trite laid down in Mohan Lal’s
case (cited above), in my considered opinion, the ends of justice will be met if the respondent is
directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the petitioner in lieu of the reinstatement
of his services and other consequential benefits, if any.
27.
This issue is also decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
RELIEF (ISSUE NO.4)
28.
As a sequel to my findings on the issues No.1 and 3 above, the instant claim petition
succeeds in part and the same is partly allowed. The termination of the services of the petitioner by
the respondent in October, 2008 is set aside and quashed. The respondent is directed to pay a lump
sum amount of Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousand only) as compensation to the petitioner in lieu of the
reinstatement of his services as well as other consequential benefits, if any. Such amount will be
paid by the respondent to the petitioner or deposited in this Court within a period of 60 days from
today failing which he (respondent) will be liable to pay the interest @ 9% per annum on the said
amount from the date of the institution of this reference i.e. 13.06.2013 till the date of
payment/deposit. Parties to bear their own costs.
29.
The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
30.
A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the
official gazette.
31.
File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open Court today this 1st day of May, 2014.
(RAJAN GUPTA),
Presiding Judge,
Labour Court-cum-Industrial
Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P.
1604
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
IN THE COURT OF RAJAN GUPTA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-
CUMINDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.
Ref No. : 79/2013
Date of Institution : 02.08.2013
Date of Decision : 01.05.2014
Shri Kishori Lal s/o Shri Tulsi Ram, r/o Village Guddan, P.O. Trella, Tehsil Churah, Distt.
Chamba, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Versus
The Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division, Pangi at Killar, Distt. Chamba, H.P.
..Respondent.
Reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For the Petitioner : Sh. R.K. Bhardwaj, Adv.
For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A.
AWARD
The below given reference has been received from the appropriate Government for
adjudication:
“Whether termination of the services of Sh. Kishori Lal S/O Sh. Tulsi Ram by the The
Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division, Pangi at Killar, Distt. Chamba, H.P. w.e.f. Year, 2006
and retaining the junior workmen, as alleged by worker, is proper and justified? If not, what
amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the aggrieved
workman is entitled to?”
2. The case of the petitioner (as set out in the statement of claim/demand) is that his services
were engaged as a beldar in the month of April, 2001 by the respondent. He continuously worked
as such up-to the month of October, 2007 in HPPWD Sub Division, Shor. On 1st November, 2007,
his services were terminated by the respondent by a verbal order. He had completed more than 160
days of work (Pangi is tribal area) in a block of 12 calendar months preceding the date of his
termination. Before the disengagement of his services, no notice was served upon him by the
respondent. At the time of the termination of his services, the persons junior to him were retained in
service by the respondent. The latter failed to abide by the principle of ‘last come first go’. He
requested the respondent time and again to re-engage his services, but in vain. Finally, in the month
of December, 2007, the respondent refused to re-employ him despite the availability of the work
and the funds. A demand notice dated 28.1.2008 was served upon the respondent by him, but of no
avail. The act and conduct of the respondent is illegal and unjustified. It is also violative of the
provisions 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 evident from the prayer clause, the petitioner has claimed the following relief(s)
in this case:-
“1. That the applicant kindly be ordered to be re-engaged by the respondents on the same
post of Beldar as at the time of his termination with continuity of service, back wages and
consequential benefits.
1605
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
2. That the services of the applicant be ordered to be regularised from the date of his
completion of 160 days of service on his respective post of Beldar in regular pay scale of
the post with arrear of pay allowance and consequential benefits”.
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 in the present form. The
petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands. He has suppressed the material
facts from the Court. The petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties and mis-
joinder of the parties. It suffers from the vice of delay and laches.
On merits, it has been denied that the services of the petitioner were engaged as a beldar
in the month of April, 2001. Actually, the petitioner was appointed in the month of April,
2002. He worked till October, 2006 in Satrundi Section. The services of the petitioner
were never disengaged as alleged. He left the job of his own. The petitioner does not
fulfill the criteria fixed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh of 240 days service in
each calendar year continuously for eight years for the regularization of his services in the
non-tribal area. The petitioner, who was serving in the non-tribal area did not complete
240 days of work in any calendar year of his engagement. He was never sincere towards
his duties. No person junior to the petitioner has been retained in service. Even no
new/fresh hands have been appointed after the alleged termination. Since the petitioner
willingly left the service, he is not entitled to any protection under the Act. 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. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has reiterated the contents of the petition/statement of
claim and refuted the objections put forth by the respondent. It has been pleaded that he is
serving in the tribal area. 160 mandays are required for the regularization of his services.
Break in service, if any, was illegally given by the respondent. He never abandoned the
job.
5. Per order dated 23.10.2013, following issues were struck.
1. Whether the termination of the services of the petitioner by the respondent during
the year 2006 is 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 petition suffers from the vice of delay and laches as alleged. If so, its
effect?
OPR
5. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties 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.
1606
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
7. For the reasons detailed here under, my findings on the above issues are as follows:-
Issue No.1 :
No
Issue No.2 :
Yes
Issue No.3 :
Not pressed
Issue No.4 :
No
Issue No.5 :
Not pressed.
Relief. :
Claim petition dismissed vide operative portion of the Award.
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 Kishori Lal 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 served as a beldar from April, 2002 to October,
2006. He denied that he used to absent from his duties and left the job in the month of October,
2006. He admitted that no intentional break in service was given to him by the respondent. He
refuted that no person junior to him is serving the respondent/department and he is not entitled to
the re-employment etc.
10.
Conversely, Shri M.P. Dhiman, Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Division Killar-Pangi
(respondent) testified as RW1. He corroborated on oath the contents of the reply filed by him. He
also stated that the petitioner was serving in Bairagarh Section which is non–tribal area.
In the cross-examination, he denied that the services of the petitioner were engaged in the
month of April, 2001. He admitted that when the petitioner left the job, no notice was given to him
asking him to resume his duties. Even no departmental proceedings were initiated against the
petitioner. He denied that he has given a phoney statement.
11.
Ex. RW1/A is the mandays chart relating to the petitioner.
12.
The petitioner (PW1) has not placed/exhibited on the record any document evidencing
that his services were initially engaged by the respondent as a daily waged beldar in the month of
April, 2001 and he continuously worked as such up-to the month of October, 2007. Rather, during
the cross-examination, the petitioner (PW1) admitted that he served the respondent/department
from April, 2002 to October, 2006 only. The said fact finds support from the mandays chart Ex.
RW1/A.
13.
The version of the petitioner is that on 1st November, 2007, his services were
terminated by the respondent by a verbal order wrongly and illegally. While denying the said fact,
the respondent has pleaded that the petitioner was not a sincere worker. He left the job of his own
accord and free volition in the month of October, 2006. As already mentioned, during his
crossexamination, the petitioner (PW1) admitted that he served the respondent/department only up-
to October, 2006.
1607
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
14.
It is well known that the abandonment has to be proved like any other fact by the
respondent/employer. Simply because a workman fails to report for duty, it cannot be presumed
that he has left/abandoned the job. It has come in the statement of the respondent (RW1) that no
notice was given to the petitioner calling upon him to resume his duties after he allegedly left the
same. Absence from duty is serious misconduct. Admittedly, no disciplinary proceedings were
initiated against the petitioner by the respondent for his alleged willful absence from duty. The plea
of abandonment put forth by the respondent is not established.
15.
It is not the case of the petitioner that the mandays chart Ex. RW1/A produced by the
respondent is incorrect. Its perusal discloses that the petitioner did not complete 240/160 days of
work in a block of 12 calendar months preceding the date of the alleged termination as envisaged
under Section 25-B of the Act. The provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are thus not attracted in
this case.
16.
The petitioner has not disclosed the name of any person junior to him, who was
allegedly retained in service by the respondent at the time of the termination in question. Not only
this, the petitioner has failed to divulge the name of any person who was appointed by the
respondent after the alleged termination of his services. For these reasons, it cannot be said that the
respondent has contravened the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act.
17. Otherwise too, Section 10(4) of the Act mandates that the Labour Court/Industrial
Tribunal shall confine its adjudication to the points of dispute referred to it by the appropriate
Government and the matters incidental thereto. As per the reference received from the appropriate
Government, this Court is required to decide as to whether the final termination of the services of
the petitioner by the respondent in the year 2006 is/was illegal and unjustified or not? The
termination, which allegedly took place in the year 2006, has not been impugned by the
claimant/petitioner on any count. Rather, his version is that his services have been unlawfully
terminated by the respondent on 1st November, 2007.
18.
Such being the situation, I have no hesitation to conclude that the disengagement of
the services of the petitioner by the respondent is neither illegal nor unjustified. The claim petition
is not maintainable in the present form. No provision of the Act has been infringed by the
respondent.
19.
These issues are decided against the petitioner and in favour of his opponent.
ISSUES NO. 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
1608
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
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.
This issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
RELIEF (ISSUE NO.6)
23. As a sequel to my findings on the issues No. 1and 2 above, the instant claim petition being
meritless and not maintainable fails. It is, therefore, dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
24.
The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
25.
A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the
official gazette.
26.
File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open Court today this 1st day of May, 2014.
(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. : 04/2013
Sh. Bir Singh s/o Shri Dole Ram, r/o Village Lagriana, P.O. Panjain, Sub Tehsil Bali Chowki,
District Mandi, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Versus
The Executive Engineer, B&R Division, HPPWD Gohar, District Mandi, H.P.
..Respondent.
05-05-2014 Present : Petitioner in person.
Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, D.D.A. for the respondent.
The claimant/petitioner has made the below given statement in the Court today:-
“ esjh lsok;sa izfroknh us igys gh regular dj nh gSa A eSa ;g eqdnek u pykuk pkgrk gwaA nkf[ky
n¶rj fd;k tkosA
1609
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
RO & AC
P.J.”
Sd/-
05-05-2014
2. 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. 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-
CUMINDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.
Ref No. : 125/2011
Date of Institution : 16.11.2011
Date of Decision : 05.05.2014
Smt. Renu Mehra w/o Late Shri Dev Raj, Ex-Peon, r/o Old Chari Road Sudhead, Near Sh.
C.L. Mehra Niwas, Dharamsala, District Kangra, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Versus
The Principal, BD DAV Senior Secondary Public School, Kotwali Bazar, Dharamsala,
District Kangra, (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. Jitender Sharma, Adv.
AWARD
The below given reference has been received from the appropriate Government for
adjudication:
“Whether termination of the services of Smt. Renu Mehra W/O late Sh. Dev Raj, Ex-Peon,
R/O Old Chari Road Sudhead, Near Sh. C.L. Mehra Niwas, Dharmsala, Distt. Kangra, H.P. as
Peon by The Principal, BD DAV Senior Secondary Public School, Kotwali Bazar,
Dharamsala, Distt. Kangra (H.P.) w.e.f. 26.9.2009, without issuing charge sheet, without
conducting enquiry and without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1610
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service
benefits, 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) reads thus:-
“1. That the services of applicant have been engaged by the respondent as Class IV (Peon)
in the year 2000 and she had continued worked up to 25.09.2009 and during the above
said period her work and conduct was fully satisfactory up to the mark and she had not
given any chance for her complaint to her superior as well as the management of the
institution. It is submitted during her services with the management she had allowed to
discharged her duties as like cleaning in guest room, staff room, stationary room and in
corridor, given the tea as per requirement of officers and teachers of institution and
provided the files to teachers and clerks from the office of Principal and after close the
school she had cleaning the four classes and corridor every day as per the instruction of
respondent.
2. That when all of sudden her services have been unlawfully terminated by the
respondent without any notice and before terminating her services she has not served any
show cause notice, charge sheet against her alleged misconduct neither the enquiry had
been conducted against her and the retrenchment as required under section 25-F (b) has
not paid to her at the time of her unlawful termination i.e. 26.09.2009 and without
complying the same every termination is null, void and ab-initio.
3. That it categorically submitted here that one month notice pay has also not paid to the
applicant under Section 25-F (a) of the Ibid Act at the time of her unlawful termination
i.e. 26.09.2009 but the same has been paid to her amounting Rs.1600/- vide letter no
DAV/PS/KB/1951-52 dated 26.10.2009 which has been sent to the bank by the
respondent through above registered letter no in her account no 5080 in State Bank of
India, Branch Dharamshala and copy of the same has been sent to her for her information
and the information for termination of her services has not intimated to the appropriate
government i.e. Labour Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh under Section 25-F (c) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and without complying the same every termination is null,
void and ab-initio. Whereas the applicant has been completed more than 240 days in each
calendar years as well as last twelve calendar preceding months from the date of her
unlawful termination. Even that the respondent have own service by laws which is
applicable to the every employees of the institution has also been violated by the
respondent and the same has been violated against the principle of natural justice.
4. That it is specifically stated here that at the time of her appointment as peon she had
fixed in consolidated salary and at the time of her termination she was given Rs.1600/- per
month by the management which is less under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 whereas
the respondent institution is covered under the Schedule Industry as covered by Labour
Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh under the Minimum Wages Act and the applicant is
entitled minimum wages as fixed by the state government to the category of Peon as
unskilled category for the period from 2000 to 26.09.2005 as such the state government
has fixed the minimum wages of unskilled category in the year 2000 Rs 1530/- per month,
01.08.2001 Rs 1650/- per month w.e.f. 01.08.2002 Rs 1800/- per month, w.e.f. 15.03.2003
Rs 1950/- per month, w.e.f. 15.05.2005 Rs 2100/- per month, w.e.f. 01.07.2007 Rs 2250/-
per month, w.e.f. 01.01.2008 Rs 3000/- per month, w.e.f. 01.0.3.2009 Rs 3300/- per
month. It is submitted here that the respondent have been made the less minimum wages
to the applicant for the aforesaid period and she is entitled difference of wages from year,
2000 to 26.09.2009 along with interest @ 12% per annum. It is again submitted here that
1611
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
on her demand to pay her to the respondent to pay her minimum wages as fixed by the
state government from time to time and the same has refused by the respondent and due to
this point her services have been unlawfully terminated by the respondent.
5. That at the time of her appointment she has not given any appointment order and also
not given wages slip under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 which is mandatory under
and all the relevant record of the applicant is under the possession of respondent and the
respondent be produce the wages register to the applicant along with detail of payments
for the period from 2000 to 26.09.2009 for the purpose of determine the point of less
wages paid to applicant.
6. That the act of the respondent to terminated the services of applicant w.e.f. 26.09.2009
is highly unjustified, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the mandatory provisions of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the same may kindly be set aside on the above
mentioned ground.
7. That it is submitted here that the applicant is still unemployed and not gainfully
employed anywhere after her illegal termination dated 26.09.2009 and the petitioner is
entitled for full back wages in this ground.
Relief Sought,
It is therefore prayed in view of the aforesaid submissions made here in above the Hon’ble
Court may kindly be granted the following relief in the favour of applicant.
(i) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be set aside the illegal termination order dated
26.09.2009 and directed to respondent to reinstate the services of applicant with full
back wages, in continuity of service, seniority with all other consequential service
benefits.
(ii) The Hon’ble Court again may kindly be determine the less wages paid to applicant for
the period from year, 2000 to 26.09.2009 under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and
directed to respondent to pay the difference of wages to the applicant along with
interest @ 12% per annum and litigation cost of Rs 5000/-.”
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. The petitioner is estopped to sue by her act and conduct. She
has suppressed the material facts from the Court and has not come to the Court with clean hands.
Since the petitioner is/was a contractual appointee, she has no locus standi to sue.
On merits, paras 1 to 6 of the reply are reproduced below verbatim for ready reference:-
“1. That the contents of para No.1 of the claim petition are wrong hence denied in toto. It
is absolutely wrong that the applicant have been engaged by the respondent as a class-IV
(peon) in the year 2000. It is worth mentioning that the applicant was appointed w.e.f. 01-
04-2009 to 31-03-2010 as a Bal Sevika and her service was purely temporary as per the
memorandum number T & NT/TEMP STAFF/2009 vide dated 30-03-2009, photocopy of
which is annexed as Annexure R-1. The terms and condition of the memorandum R-1,
were duly explained and the applicant signed the same after accepting of terms and
condition of her appointment. It is absolutely wrong, that during the period of
appointment of the applicant, the work and conduct of the applicant was fully satisfactory
1612
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
upto the mark. It is also wrong that the applicant had not given any chance, for her
complaint, to her superior as well as management of the instruction. It is pertinent to state
that the applicant was appointed as a Balsevika and nature of the duties of this post
includes apart from the duties mentioned by applicant, also to take care of the small
children of the school, and to do some other work of assistance as per the requirement of
the school.
2. That the contents of para No.2 of the complaint petition are absolutely wrong, hence
denied in toto. It is wrong that the services of the applicant was terminated unlawfully and
it is also wrong that the service of the applicant was terminated all of the sudden as
alleged by her. In fact, the applicant was given ample opportunity to mend her self and
when the applicant fails to do so, her service were terminated as per the provision of law.
photocopy of termination letter is annexed as Annexure-R2. The applicant was also given
one month salary, which is admitted by her, in para No.3 of the claim petition itself. The
copy of the letter vide which, the applicant was intimated about the transfer of amount in
her account, in lieu of one month. (Photocopy of notice is annexed as Annexure R-3).
This para of the petition is totally in contravention to the admission made in para No.3 of
the claim petition. It is worth mentioning that various complaints of different dated,
received against the applicant from the employees as well as the parents of the children.
(The photocopies of which are annexed as annexure R-4 to R 13). It is submitted that the
applicant has admitted her self that she had been paid Rs.1600/- vide Annexure R-3. It is
pertinent to state that since the employment of the petitioner was purely on contractual
basis, so that the petitioner was paid one month salary in accordance, though the condition
of the Annexure R-1 i.e. memorandum, specifically states that “her services are liable to
be terminated at any time without notice”. The termination of the services of the applicant
is in accordance with law and not null void and ab-initio, as alleged by the applicant.
3. In reply to para No.3, it is submitted that the contents of this para are admitted to be
correct to the extent that Rs.1600/- were deposited in the account No.5080 of the applicant
on 20- 10-2009 by the respondent. Rest of the contents of this para are denied being false
and incorrect. It is worth mentioning that the applicant had worked only less then 180
days from the date of her appointment as Balsevika and her services, as clear from the
annexure R-1, was purely contractual, so the prevision of the section 25 (F) (c) are not
attracted as alleged by the applicant in this para. The mandatory provisions of the I.D.
Act, 1947 were duly followed and due to the various complaints received against the
applicant, the respondent was left with no other option but to terminate the service of the
applicant. It is further submitted that in order to maintain the decorum of the institution, it
became mediatory for the respondent to terminate the services of the applicant, as
complaints against the applicant were of a serious nature. No principle of natural justice
was violated. The applicant was even paid one month salary in lieu of the notice. The
respondent tried her level best and ask the complainant to rectify her behaviour with the
staff and children many a times, but when the applicant instead of mending her basis,
repeatedly went on to continue, her apathy and behavior towards the staff as well as the
small children, then the respondent was compelled to terminate the service of the
applicant. The services of the applicant were terminated as per the provision of the law.
The various compliant received against the applicant are self explanatory, which is
annexed as Annexure R-4 to R-13.
4. That this para of the petition is totally misleading, as the provision of this para are
centralized for the post of peon. As motioned above the applicant was never appointed as
peon but only appointed as a Balsevika, as clear from the Annexure R-1, with
consolidated salary of Rs.1600/- only which was duly accepted by her. (Consent of this
1613
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
effect is on the memorandum R-1, with her signature on page-2). The alleged notification
of minimum wages alleged in this para are not applicable to the preset applicant.
It is wrong to alleged that the applicant is entitled for difference of wages from 2000 to
26-09-2009, the ultimate date of termination. It is wrong that on demanded by the
applicant, the respondent terminated the services of the applicant. In fact annexure R-2
dated 26-09-2009 is self explanatory, which clearly indicate that due to negative attitude
and metal harassment caused to the small children by the applicant, the services of the
applicant were terminated.
5. In reply to para No.5, it is submitted that the contents of this para are absolutely
wrong, hence denied into. The memorandum of the appointment Annexure R-1, on page
No.2 bears the signature of the applicant which clearly shows that the applicant had
accepted the terms and conditions, so the petitioner in order to mislead the Hon’ble
Tribunal has concocted a false story. The consolidated wages were duly paid to the
applicant in accordance with law in her account. The applicant never worked from the
year 2000 as alleged by her with the respondent. The appointment order was duly
conveyed and supplied to the applicant.
6. That the contents of para No.6 and 7 of the claim petition are wrong, hence denied in
toto. The services of the applicant were terminated as per the provisions of law and after
26-09-2009 the applicant was not employee of the respondent and is not entitled for full
back wages as alleged in the claim meditation. Attendance Register (copy is Annexed As
Anner R-14)”.
In these circumstances, the respondent prays that the petition in hand be dismissed with
costs.
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. It has been pleaded that from the year of her
initial engagement i.e. the year 2000 to 25-09-2009, she discharged her duties as a peon.
Memorandum dated 30.3.2009 (annexure R-1) was not issued in her name by the respondent. Her
services were not engaged on contract basis. The respondent/school has its own service rules. As
per those rules, no employee can be appointed on contractual basis. She (petitioner) served for
more than 10 years on temporary/casual basis. Her services were engaged as a regular employee
w.e.f. 01.4.2009 after temporary status of more than 10 years.
5. Per order dated 20.04.2012, following issues were struck.
1. Whether the termination of the services of the petitioner by the respondent w.e.f.
26-09-2009 is illegal and unjustified?
OPP
2. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form?
OPR
3. Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the claim petition by her act and
conduct as alleged?
OPR
4. Whether the petitioner has the locus-standi to sue?
OPP
5. Whether the petitioner has not come to Court with clean hands as alleged. If so, its
effect?
OPR
6. Relief.
1614
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
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 :
Yes
Issue No.5 :
Not pressed
Relief. :
Claim petition allowed in part vide operative portion of the Award.
REASONS FOR FINDINGS
ISSUE NO.1
8. Smt. Renu Mehra (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 her services were engaged as a Bal Sevika on
temporary basis from 01.4.2009 to 31.3.2010. She denied that the memorandum dated 30.3.2009,
the copy of which is Ex. R1, in this regard was prepared and it bears her signatures in the red circle.
She admitted that the consolidated salary of Rs.1600/- per month was being paid to her by the
respondent. She denied that she used to quarrel with the school staff and irritate the students. She
also denied that the respondent asked her many times to improve her behaviour, but in vain.
Further, she denied that her services were terminated so as to maintain decorum/discipline in the
school. She admitted that the agreed amount of pay was paid to her regularly by the
respondent/school. She also admitted that the wages for the period she worked in the school have
been paid to her.
9. Conversely, Shri S.H. Khan, Principal, BD DAV Senior Secondary School, Dharamshala
(respondent) testified as RW1. In his affidavit Ex. RW1/A preferred as per Order 18 Rule 4 CPC,
he corroborated on oath the contents of the reply filed by him.
In the cross-examination, he admitted that on the basis of the complaints received against the
petitioner, neither she was charge-sheeted nor a show cause notice was ever issued to her. He
denied that the services of the petitioner were initially engaged in the year 2000. Self stated, she
was appointed in the year 2001 on part-time basis. He denied that the services of the petitioner were
engaged as Aaya-cum-peon. Volunteered, she was Bal Sevika. He admitted that the services of the
petitioner were terminated on 26.9.2009. He also admitted that before the disengagement of the
services of the petitioner, neither any notice under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (14 of 1947, ‘the Act’ for short) was given to her nor the retrenchment compensation was
paid. He denied that the services of the petitioner were disengaged unlawfully.
10.
Exts. PW1/B, C and D are the copies of the replies/letters written by the respondent to
the Labour Inspector, Kangra at Dharamshala, on 01.12.2009, 03.5.2010 and 26.7.2011,
respectively, during the conciliation proceedings.
11.
Ex. PW1/E is the copy of the demand notice served upon the respondent by the
petitioner under Section 2-A of the Act.
12.
Ex. R2 is the copy of the termination letter dated 26.9.2009 served upon the petitioner
by the respondent. The receipt of this letter was allegedly refused by the petitioner/claimant.
1615
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
13.
Ex. R3 is the copy of a letter dated 20.10.2009 written to the Manager, Bank of India,
Dharamshala by the respondent. Vide this letter the Manager of the Bank was requested to transfer
a sum of Rs.1600/- only in the account of Smt. Renu Mehra (petitioner) for the month of October,
2009, in lieu of one month notice.
14.
Ex. RW1/B is the copy of envelop of the registered letter, which was sent by the
respondent to the petitioner. As per the report made by the postal authorities, the receipt of the
registered letter was refused by the petitioner/addressee.
15.
Ex. RW1/C is the copy of a letter dated 23.6.2009 written by the petitioner to the
respondent. In this letter, the petitioner mentioned that on 22.6.2009, she reached the school late as
the Jeep in which she was traveling broke down. She requested the respondent/Principal to pardon
her for reaching the school late.
16.
Exts. RW1/D to M are the copies of various complaints, which were received by the
respondent on different dates against the petitioner, from the school employees.
17.
Ex. RW1/N is the copy of the attendance register for the months of April, 2009 to
October, 2009 relating to the petitioner and other staff members of the school.
18.
Exts. RW1/O to V are the details of working days pertaining to the petitioner and
others.
19.
Ex. RA is the copy of the Saving Bank Account of the petitioner maintained by her in
the Bank of India, Dharamshala Branch.
20.
Ex. RB is the copy of the Service Rules for employees working in the school.
21.
The petitioner has not placed/exhibited on the record any document evidencing that
her services were initially engaged by the respondent as a class-IV (Peon) in the year 2000. The
respondent (RW1) in his cross-examination stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Bal Sevika
on part-time basis in the year 2001. The said fact finds support from Exts. RW1/O to V viz. the list
of the employees appointed on casual basis by the respondent. These documents also highlight the
working days of the petitioner.
22.
The assertion of the respondent that the services of the petitioner were engaged for the
first time vide memorandum dated 30.3.2009, the copy of which is Ex.R1, appears to be totally
false and baseless in view of the evidence available on the file. As already mentioned, the
respondent (RW1) admitted that the services of the petitioner were initially engaged way back in
the year 2001. Otherwise too, in the letter dated 26.7.2011, the copy of which is Ex. PW1/D,
written by the respondent to the Labour Inspector, Kangra at Dharamshala, it has been mentioned
that the petitioner worked as a full time worker from 03.12.2007 to 31.3.2009. It is not the case of
the respondent that the service conditions of the petitioner were changed after issuing the notice as
envisaged under Section 9-A of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner could not be appointed on
temporary basis from 01.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 vide memorandum dated 30.3.2009 (Ex. R1). The
petitioner has denied that Ex. R1 was issued in her name and it bears her signatures.
23.
It is the admitted case of the parties that the petitioner served the respondent/school
up-to 25.9.2009 and her services were terminated with immediate effect per letter dated 26.9.2009,
the copy of which is Ex. R2. The version of the respondent is that the services of the petitioner
were terminated as a measure of punishment since she used to come late to the school as well as
various complaints regarding her act and conduct were received from the school staff. Admittedly,
1616
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
after the receipt of the complaints against the petitioner, neither she was charge-sheeted by the
respondent/employer nor an inquiry was conducted against her. Therefore, the imposition of the
penalty of dismissal from service on the petitioner by the respondent is patently wrong and illegal.
24.
From the mandays charts Exts. RW1/O to V, it can be gathered that the petitioner had
completed more than 240 days of work in a block of 12 calendar months preceding the date of her
termination i.e. 26.09.2009 as envisaged under Section 25-B of the Act. The respondent (RW1) in
his crossexamination admitted that before the disengagement of the services of the petitioner,
neither any notice under Section 25-F of the Act was given to her nor the retrenchment
compensation was paid. For these reasons, the termination of the services of the petitioner by the
respondent is illegal and unjustified.
25.
It is not the case of the petitioner that at the time of the retrenchment of her services,
any person junior to her was retained in service by the respondent. It is also not her case that after
the disengagement of her services, new/fresh hands have been appointed by the respondent and she
was not afforded an opportunity of re-employment. The provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of
the Act are thus not attracted in this case.
26.
The date of issuance of the demand notice Ex. PW1/E has not come on the file. Of
course, the copy of the letter dated 01.12.2009 (Ex. PW1/B) written by the respondent to the
Labour Inspector, Dharamshala is there on the file. The said letter relates to the termination of the
services of the petitioner. The termination in question took place on 26.9.2009. From the letter Ex.
PW1/B, it can be gathered that the Labour Inspector had written a letter dated 10.11.2009 to the
respondent during the conciliation proceedings. This indicates that the industrial dispute was raised
by the petitioner at the earliest opportunity and within a period of less than two months from the
date of the impugned termination.
27.
In the demand notice (Ex. PW1/E), the petitioner no where mentioned that wages less
than the prescribed minimum wages are/were being paid to her by the respondent/school.
Therefore, she is not entitled to the wages as claimed. Moreover, the petitioner (PW1) admitted that
the agreed wages were paid to her by the respondent for the period she served under him.
28.
While testifying in the Court as PW1, the petitioner has given her age as 45 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. She is thus not entitled to the back wages. Of
course, she is entitled to the reinstatement of her services besides the continuity in service etc.
29.
This issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
ISSUES NO. 2, 3 AND 5
30.
Not pressed
ISSUE NO.4
31.
While deciding issue No.1, it has already been held by me that the respondent has
contravened the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. For the said reason, the termination of the
services of the petitioner by the respondent is illegal and unjustified. She has the locus standi to
sue.
32.
This issue is also decided in favour of the petitioner and against her opponent.
1617
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
RELIEF (ISSUE NO.6)
33.
As a sequel to my findings on the issues No.1 and 4 above, the instant claim petition
succeeds in part and the same is partly allowed. The termination of the services of the petitioner by
the respondent w.e.f. 26.09.2009 is set aside and quashed. The respondent is directed to reinstate
the services of the petitioner forthwith. She shall be entitled to the seniority and continuity in
service from the date of her illegal retrenchment i.e. 26.09.2009 except back wages. Parties to bear
their own costs.
34.
It is clarified that the respondent will be at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings
against the petitioner for the misconduct(s) attributed to her and take the action against her as per
law.
35.
The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
36.
A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the
official gazette.
37.
File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open Court today this 5th day of May, 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. : 53/2013
Date of Institution : 24.6.2013
Date of Decision : 12.05.2014
Shri Hem Kund s/o Shri Khoob Ram, r/o Village Anu, P.O. Behli, Sub Tehsil Nihri, District
Mandi, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Versus
The Divisional Forest Officer, Suket Forest Division, Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P.
..Respondent.
Reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For the Petitioner : Sh. S.S. Sippy, AR
For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, DDA
AWARD
1618
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
The below given reference has been received from the appropriate Government for
adjudication:
“Whether time to time termination of the services of Shri Hem Kund S/O Shri Khoob Ram,
R/O Village Anu, P.O. Behli, Sub-Tehsil Nihri, District Mandi, H.P. during 2008 to 2010
and finally during July/August 2010 by The Divisional Forest Officer, Suket Forest
Division, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. without complying with the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages,
seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to form 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 waged forest worker/labourer by the respondent on 01.5.1999. He
continuously worked as such up-to 8th August, 2013 in Haraboi Beat of Kangoo Forest Range. On
9th August, 2013, his services were terminated by the respondent without assigning any reason and
issuing any notice by a verbal order. During the period of his employment, the respondent gave him
the artificial/fictional breaks time and again so that he does not complete 240 days of work. His
seniority has been disturbed. He has also been deprived of the various service benefits by the
respondent/employer. The persons junior to him (petitioner) were provided continuous work by the
respondent. He has been discriminated. Names of 386 workers figure in the seniority list dated
31.3.2003 issued by the respondent. His (petitioner’s) name is there at serial No.259 of the list. 128
persons junior to him are serving the respondent/department. The services of 23 workmen junior to
him were regularized by the respondent in the month of September, 2012. His seniority has been
ignored. The respondent failed to abide by the principle of ‘last come first go’ as well as indulged
in unfair labour practice. During the break period, he remained without any work. Even after the
final termination of his services on 09.8.2013, he is unemployed. The act and conduct of the
respondent is illegal and unjustified. It is also violative of the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and
25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947, ‘the Act’ for short).
As such, he (petitioner) prays that the artificial breaks in service given to him by the
respondent from the date of his initial engagement to 08.8.2013 as well as the final termination of
his services ordered by the respondent on 09.8.2013 be upset. The break period be counted for the
purpose of continuous service. The respondent be directed to reinstate him in service with all
consequential benefits including the seniority, continuity in service and payment of the back wages
etc.
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 reference and the claim
petition regarding the retrenchment of the services of the petitioner w.e.f. July/August, 2010 are
premature. They have also become in-fructuous as the petitioner is still working with him
(respondent).
On merits, it has been denied that the services of the petitioner were engaged on 01.5.1999.
Actually, the petitioner was appointed as a daily waged labourer in the month of April, 2000 for
carrying out the seasonal forestry works. Neither any artificial/fictional break in service was
provided to the petitioner nor his services were finally terminated as alleged. The petitioner was an
intermittent worker. He used to report for duty as per his convenience. As and when the petitioner
came present, his services were duly utilized for undertaking the seasonal forestry works subject to
the availability of the works and the funds. The petitioner used to do the seasonal work of
plantation, fencing and fire protection etc. It has been owned that the name of the petitioner finds
1619
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
mention at serial No.259 of the seniority list. The services of those daily wagers have been
regularized who completed eight years of continuous service with minimum of 240 days in a
calendar year as per the policy of the State. The principle of ‘last come first go’ was strictly
followed. He (respondent) did not indulge in unfair labour practice. No provision of the Act has
been flouted. Since the petitioner is working with him, there is no question of his not being
gainfully employed. The petition is meritless.
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 14.11.2013, following issues were struck:
1. Whether time to time termination of the services/giving breaks in service to the
petitioner by the respondent during the years 2008 to 2010 is/was illegal and
unjustified as alleged?
..OPP.
2. Whether the final termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent
during the month of July/August, 2010 is illegal and unjustified as alleged?
..OPP.
3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form?
..OPR.
4. Whether the petition is hit by the vice of delay and laches as alleged. If so, its
effect?
..OPR.
5. Whether the claim petition is premature and has become infructuous 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 : No
Issue No.2 : Not pressed
Issue No.3 : Yes
Issue No.4 : No
Issue No.5 : Not pressed
Relief. : Claim petition dismissed vide operative portion of the Award.
REASONS FOR FINDINGS
ISSUES NO.1 AND 3
8. Being interlinked and to avoid the repetition, both these issues are taken up together
for discussion and disposal.
1620
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
9. Shri Hem Kund (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 denied that his services were initially engaged by the
respondent in the month of April, 2000. He admitted that the work in the forest department is
seasonal. He denied that he did not work for a single day in the years 2002, 2006 and 2007. He
denied that neither any intentional break in service was provided to him by the respondent nor his
services were terminated as alleged. He also denied that he has instituted a phoney petition to
derive undue benefits.
10. Conversely, Shri Ajit Kumar Thakur, Divisional Forest Officer, Suket Forest Division,
Sunder Nagar (respondent) testified as RW1. In his affidavit Ex. RW1/A preferred as per Order 18
Rule 4 CPC, he corroborated on oath the contents of the reply filed by him.
In the cross-examination, he denied that intentional breaks in service were provided to the
petitioner time and again. He also denied that the services of the petitioner were finally terminated
in an unlawful manner after August, 2010.
11. Ex. PW1/B is the copy of the seniority list of daily wagers of Suket Forest Division,
Sunder Nagar as it stood on 31.3.2003. The name of the petitioner is there at serial No.259 of this
list.
12. Ex. RW1/B is the mandays chart relating to the petitioner.
13. The petitioner has not placed/exhibited on the record any document evidencing that his
services were initially engaged by the respondent on 1st May, 1999 as claimed. It is not the case of
the petitioner that the mandays chart Ex. RW1/B produced by the respondent is incorrect. Its
perusal discloses that the petitioner was appointed as a daily wager by the respondent in the month
of April, 2000 and he is continuously working with the respondent/department even after
July/August, 2010. Therefore, the question of the final termination of the services of the petitioner
by the respondent (as per the reference) does not arise. Otherwise too, the ld. counsel/AR for the
petitioner fairly conceded at bar that his client is still on the rolls of the respondent/department.
14. Now comes the question as to whether artificial breaks in service were provided to the
petitioner by the respondent from the year 2008 to 2010? As already mentioned, the mandays chart
Ex. RW1/B is not in dispute. Its perusal discloses that the petitioner did not work for a single day in
the years 2002, 2006 and 2007. He worked for less than 100 days in the years 2000 and 2003 to
2005. The working pattern of the petitioner clarifies that he is/was an intermittent worker, who used
to work as per his convenience. No explanation is forthcoming on behalf of the petitioner as to why
he did not serve the respondent for a single day in the years 2002, 2006 and 2007 as well as worked
for less than 100 days in the years 2000 and 2003 to 2005. Keeping in mind the working pattern of
the petitioner, I feel that by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that artificial breaks in service
were provided to him by the respondent as alleged.
15. Such being the situation, I have no hesitation to conclude that the claim petition is not
maintainable in the present form. No fictional break in service was given to the petitioner by the
respondent during the years 2008 to 2010.
16. These issues are decided against the petitioner and in favour of his adversary.
ISSUES NO.2 AND 5
1621
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
17. Not pressed.
ISSUE NO. 4
18. 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.
19. This issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
RELIEF (ISSUE NO.6)
20. As a sequel to my findings on the issues No. 1 and 3 above, the instant claim petition
being meritless and not maintainable fails. It is, therefore, dismissed. Parties to bear their own
costs.
21. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
22. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the
official gazette.
23. File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open Court today this 12th day of May, 2014.
(RAJAN GUPTA)
Presiding Judge,
Labour Court-cum-Industrial.
_________
IN THE COURT OF RAJAN GUPTA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-
CUMINDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.
Ref. No. : 54/2013
Date of Institution : 24.6.2013
Date of Decision : 12.05.2014
1622
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
Shri Hem Raj s/o Shri Dhani Ram, r/o Village Jadiwan, P.O. Behli, Sub Tehsil Nihri,
District Mandi, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Versus
The Divisional Forest Officer, Suket Forest Division, Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P.
..Respondent.
Reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For the Petitioner : Sh. S.S. Sippy, AR
For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, DDA
AWARD
The below given reference has been received from the appropriate Government for
adjudication:
“Whether time to time termination of the services of Shri Hem Raj, S/O Shri Dhani Ram,
R/O Village Jadiwan, P.O. Behli, Sub-Tehsil Nihri, District Mandi, H.P. during 2008 to
2009 and finally during July/August 2010 by The Divisional Forest Officer, Suket Forest
Division, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. without complying with the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages,
seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the
above employer?”
2. The case of the petitioner (as set out in the statement of claim/demand) is that his services
were engaged as a daily waged forest worker/labourer by the respondent on 1st October, 1999. He
worked as such in Haraboi Beat of Kangoo Forest Range continuously up-to 08.8.2013. From the
date of his initial engagement to 08.8.2013, the respondent provided him the artificial breaks in
service time and again so that he does not complete 240 days of work in any calendar year of his
engagement. The respondent indulged in unfair labour practice. Due to the intentional breaks in
service provided by the respondent, his seniority has been disturbed. The persons junior to him
were engaged without any break by the respondent. He has been discriminated. On 9th August,
2013, the respondent stopped issuing the muster roll in his name and finally terminated his services
without issuing any notice or assigning any reason. In the seniority list dated 31.3.2003 issued by
the respondent, the names of 386 daily wagers figure. His name is there at serial No.298 of the
seniority list. 89 persons junior to him are serving the respondent/department. Out of them, the
services of 23 workmen have been regularized by the respondent in the month of September, 2012.
The respondent failed to abide by the principle of ‘last come first go’. His action also contravenes
the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947,
‘the Act’ for short). During the break period, he (petitioner) remained unemployed. Even after the
final termination of his services, he is not gainfully employed. The break period is required to be
counted for the purpose of continuous service.
As such, he (petitioner) prays that the artificial breaks in service provided to him by the
respondent time and again as well as final termination of his services ordered by the respondent on
09.8.2013 be upset. The break period be counted for the purpose of continuous service. The
respondent be directed to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits including the
seniority, continuity in service and payment of the back wages etc.
1623
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
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/reference 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 reference
regarding the retrenchment w.e.f. July/August, 2010 and the claim petition are premature. The same
have also become in-fructuous since the petitioner is working with him (respondent). The services
of the petitioner were never disengaged as alleged.
On merits, it has been denied that the services of the petitioner were engaged as a daily
waged labourer on 01.10.1999. Actually, the petitioner was appointed for undertaking the seasonal
forestry works as a daily waged labourer in the month of April, 2000. He was an intermittent
worker. The petitioner used to report for duty as per his sweet will and convenience. As and when
the petitioner reported for duty, his services were duly utilized subject to the availability of the
work and the funds. No artificial/fictional breaks in service were given to the petitioner at any point
of time. The petitioner is still on the rolls of the department for doing the seasonal works like
plantation, fencing and fire protection etc. It stands admitted that the name of the petitioner figures
at serial No.298 of the seniority list dated 31.3.2003. The services of only those daily wagers have
been regularized, who completed eight years of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days of
work in a calendar year as per the policy of the State. The principle of ‘last come first go’ was
strictly followed. No provision of the Act has been flouted. Since the petitioner is working with him
(respondent), there is no question of his not being gainfully employed. The petition is meritless.
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 14.11.2013, following issues were struck:
1. Whether time to time termination of the services/giving breaks in service to the
petitioner by the respondent during the years 2008 and 2009 is/was illegal and
unjustified as alleged?
..OPP.
2. Whether the final termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent
during the month of July/August, 2010 is illegal and unjustified as alleged?
..OPP.
3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form?
..OPR.
4. Whether the petition is hit by the vice of delay and laches as alleged. If so, its
effect?
..OPR.
5. Whether the claim petition is premature and has become infructuous 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 : No
Issue No.2 : Not pressed
1624
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
Issue No.3 : Yes
Issue No.4 : No
Issue No.5 : Not pressed
Relief. : Claim petition dismissed vide operative portion of the Award.
REASONS FOR FINDINGS
ISSUE NO.1
8. Shri Hem Raj (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. He also placed on the record Ex. PW1/B, the seniority list
of daily wagers of Suket Forest Division, Sunder Nagar as it stood on 31.3.2003.
In the cross-examination, he admitted that the work in the Forest Department is seasonal
and his services used to be engaged by the respondent from time to time for carrying out the
seasonal forestry works only. He denied that no intentional break in service was provided to him by
the respondent. He also denied that his services were never disengaged by the respondent and to
derive the undue benefits, he has instituted a phoney petition.
9. Conversely, Shri Ajit Kumar Thakur, Divisional Forest Officer, Suket Forest Division,
Sunder Nagar (respondent) testified as RW1. In his affidavit Ex. RW1/A preferred as per Order 18
Rule 4 CPC, he corroborated on oath the contents of the reply filed by him.
In the cross-examination, he stated that as and when the petitioner absented from duty, no
notice was given to him asking him to resume his duties. Even no departmental proceedings were
initiated against the petitioner. He denied that the services of the petitioner were terminated after
August, 2010 unlawfully.
10. Ex. RW1/B is the mandays chart relating to the petitioner. The same is not in dispute.
11. It is the admitted case of the parties that the services of the petitioner were engaged as
a daily waged labourer. The petitioner has not placed/exhibited on the file any document
evidencing that his services were initially engaged on 01.10.1999 as claimed. As already
mentioned, the mandays chart Ex. RW1/B is not in dispute. Its perusal discloses that the services of
the petitioner were engaged by the respondent in the month of April, 2000 and he worked with the
respondent/department intermittently up-to the year 2013. Since the petitioner worked with the
respondent even after July/August, 2010, the question of the final termination of his services by the
respondent (as per the reference) does not arise. Rather, the same has become insignificant.
12. Section 10(4) of the Act mandates that the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal shall
confine its adjudication to the points of dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government and the
matters incidental thereto. No reference has been received from the appropriate Government
regarding the alleged final termination of the services of the petitioner by the respondent on
09.8.2013. Therefore, the said controversy, if any, between the parties cannot be looked into by this
Court being beyond the terms of the reference.
13. Now comes the question as to whether artificial breaks in service were given to the
petitioner by the respondent during the years 2008 and 2009 or not?
To my mind, the answer to this query is in the negative. The mandays chart EX. RW1/B
clarifies that in the years 2002 and 2007, the petitioner did not serve the respondent for a single
1625
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
day. In the years 2000, 2001 and 2003 to 2006, he worked for less than 100 days in each and every
year. No explanation is forthcoming on behalf of the petitioner as to why he did not serve the
respondent for a single day in the years 2002 and 2007 as well as served for less than 100 days in
the years 2000, 2001 and 2003 to 2006. The petitioner (PW1) in his cross-examination admitted
that the work in the forest department is seasonal and his services used to be engaged by the
respondent from time to time for undertaking the seasonal forestry works only. The mandays chart
Ex. RW1/B highlights that from the date of his initial engagement to the year 2013, the petitioner
did not complete 240 days of work in any calendar year of his employment. The respondent has
categorically pleaded and stated that the petitioner was an intermittent worker who used to work as
per his convenience and sweet will. Taking into account the working pattern of the petitioner, by no
stretch of imagination, it can be said that artificial breaks in service were provided to him
(petitioner) by the respondent as alleged.
14. This issue is decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent.
ISSUE NO.2
15. Not pressed.
ISSUE NO.3
16. Taking into account my findings on issue No.1 above, it is held that the claim petition
is not maintainable in the present form.
17. This issue is also decided against the petitioner and in favour of his opponent.
ISSUE NO.4
18. 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.
19. This issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
ISSUE NO. 5
20. Not pressed.
1626
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
RELIEF (ISSUE NO.6)
21. As a sequel to my findings on the issues No. 1 and 3 above, the instant claim petition
being meritless and not maintainable fails. It is, therefore, dismissed. Parties to bear their own
costs.
22. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
23. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the
official gazette.
24. File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open Court today this 12th day of May, 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. : 194/2013
Date of Institution : 15.11.2013
Date of Decision : 15.05.2014
Smt. Guddi Devi w/o Shri Chamaru Ram, r/o Village & P.O. Khaddar, Tehsil Joginder
Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Versus
The Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD, 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, Dy. D.A.
AWARD
The below given reference has been received from the appropriate Government for
adjudication:
“Whether time to time termination of the services of Smt. Guddi Devi W/O Shri Chamaru
Ram, R/O Village & P.O. Khaddar, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. during
February, 1999 to 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 of back wages, seniority, past
service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above
employer?”
1627
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
2. The case of the petitioner (as set out in the statement of claim/demand) is that her
services were engaged as a daily rated beldar on 13.01.1999 by the HPPWD in the National
Highway Division, Joginder Nagar. Later on, the workmen of the said Division including her
(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 her
initial engagement up-to 31.8.2007, the respondent/department gave her the fictional breaks from
time to time. Muster roll for 15 days in a month used to be issued in her (petitioner’s) name despite
the fact that the work for the entire month was available with the respondent/department. The
persons junior to her (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 her (petitioner) w.e.f. 01.9.2007. After that, she was allowed to
complete 240 days of work in each and every calendar year of her employment. The fictional
breaks were given by the respondent arbitrarily. She has been discriminated. The work for which
her services were engaged is of permanent nature and is still continuing. From 13.01.1999 to
31.8.2007, she requested the respondent time and again to stop giving her the fictional breaks, but
in vain. During the break period, she remained without work and could not get the employment
anywhere else despite the best efforts. She 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
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 petition is bad on account of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner.
Her services were engaged pursuant to the verbal requests made by her (petitioner) from time to
time as per the requirement of the work and the availability of the funds.
On merits, paras 1 to 10 of the reply read thus:--
“1. That the contents of Para are admitted to the extent that the applicant has been engaged
in the department during w.e.f. 01/1999 by the Executive Engineer, National Highway
Division, H.P.P.W.D., Joginder Nagar as per detail of working days in Annexure-I.
This division is functioning w.e.f. January, 2004. No illegal or intentional breaks have
been given to applicant by this division.
2. That the content of this Para are wrong, incorrect hence denied. The applicant has been
engaged in the department by the Executive Engineer, National Highway Division,
H.P.P.W.D. Joginder Nagar up to December, 2003 and by this division w.e.f. January,
2004 as per the availability of works and funds. Moreover the applicant was willing to
1628
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
work, as such and has not raised any dispute prior to this notice. The year-wise
working days of the work men whose name mentioned in the petition are attached in
the Annexure-II.
3. That the contents of this Para are not admitted. This Division Regularized the daily
wages workers who has completed 8 years or more continuous service with 240 days
only the service if Sh. Dalip Singh S/o Sh. Mangat Ram, Sh. Goutam Ram S/o Sh.
Rirku Ram, Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Sh. Sant Ram, Sh. Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh. Dharam
Singh, Sh. Bhagmal S/o Sh. Doulat Ram and Sh. Chanchal S/o Sh. Tirth Ram have
been regularized and remaining workers detailed in para 2 are still working as daily
waged workers.
4. That the contents of the Para are admitted to extent that applicant has been engaged on
works w.e.f. 1/09/2007 continuous as per H.P. Govt Policy.
5. That the contents of this Para are wrong, incorrect and hence denied. It has already
been submitted in the para supra that this division is functioning w.e.f., Jan 2004. More
over the applicant was initially engaged with out following proper procedure and as
per the decision on Hon’ble High court of H.P. in CWP No.2270/2008 filed by
Sharmila Devi Shrama Versus Dr. Y.S. Parmar University and another on basis of
ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited in the judgment dated 14/05/2009 has been
decided that those appointees to the Govt. Posts whether on daily wages basis,
contract, adhoc or otherwise in whose case proper procedure has not been followed and
where the vacancies have not been advertised or proper interview, procedure had not
been held or where vacancies in the department did not exisit but the person have been
employed with out following proper procedure, there is no liability on the Govt. to
regularize such official.
6. That the contents of this Para are not admitted. This division is functioning w.e.f. Jan
2004 and the applicant has never requested this division regarding fictional break as
alleged in this para.
7. That the contents of this para are denied.
8. That the contents of this para are also not admitted. It is submitted that the applicant
has been engaged as per works and funds available and no any legal/intentional breaks
have been given to the applicant. Moreover the applicant has been initially engaged
without following the proper procedure and keeping in view the decision of the
Hon’ble High Court of H.P. in C.W.P. No.2270/2008 as stated in para 5 supra, the
applicant is not entitled for seniority for the period she has not worked in this
department.
9. Para being of judicial nature. Hence no comments.
10. Matter being legal in nature, hence no comments”.
In these circumstances, the respondent prays that the petition in hand be dismissed.
4. No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner.
5. Per order dated 20.02.2014, following issues were struck:
1. Whether time to time termination of the services/giving breaks in service to the
petitioner by the respondent from February, 1999 to 2007 is/was illegal and
unjustified as alleged?
..OPP.
1629
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
2. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form?
..OPR.
3. Whether the petition is hit by the vice of delay and laches as alleged. If so, its
effect?
..OPR.
4. 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
Relief. : Claim petition allowed in part vide operative portion of the Award.
REASONS FOR FINDINGS
ISSUE NO.1
8. Smt. Guddi 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 admitted that her 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. She denied that at the time of issuance of the muster rolls, it was
conveyed to her 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. She denied that at the time of receiving the
payment or issuance of the muster rolls, she did not raise any objection regarding providing the
artificial breaks. She also denied that the instant industrial dispute has been raised by her 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), Joginder Nagar 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 her. 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
her 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.
1630
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 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 in the year 1999 and she is working continuously. The mandays chart Ex.
RW1/C unfolds that the petitioner was initially employed in the month of January, 1999. The
respondent (RW1) did not whisper 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 Lad Bharol 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 date of her initial engagement 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 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 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 date
of her initial engagement 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
1631
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
20. 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.
21. While testifying in the Court as PW1, the petitioner has given her age as 52 years. It is
well known that a 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.
22. This issue is also decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
RELIEF (ISSUE NO.4)
23. As a sequel to my findings on the issues No.1 and 3, the instant claim petition succeeds
in part and the same is partly allowed. The breaks given by the respondent to the petitioner up-to
31.8.2007 being artificial/fictional are held to be wrong and illegal. She (petitioner) shall be entitled
to the seniority and continuity in service from the date of her initial engagement 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.
24. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
25. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the
official gazette.
26. File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open Court today this 15th day of May, 2014.
(RAJAN GUPTA)
Presiding Judge,
Labour Court-cum-Industrial
Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P.
1632
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
IN THE COURT OF RAJAN GUPTA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-
CUMINDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.
Ref. No. : 162/2013
Date of Institution : 20.9.2013
Date of Decision : 15.05.2014
Shri Vijay Pal s/o Shri Ranjeet Singh, r/o Village Pehlun, P.O. Jalpehar, Tehsil Joginder
Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Versus
The Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD, 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, Dy. D.A.
AWARD
The below given reference has been received from the appropriate Government for
adjudication:
“Whether time to time termination of the services of Shri Vijay Pal, S/O Shri Ranjeet Singh,
R/O Village Pehlun, P.O. Jalpehar, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. during
1999-2007 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 his
services were engaged by the B&R Department as a daily wager on muster roll basis in the year
1999. He worked under the Assistant Engineer, HPPWD Sub Division, Joginder Nagar. No
appointment order/letter was issued in his name by the respondent. The latter used to engage his
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 30.09.2007. Thereafter, as per the instructions
issued by the Principal Secretary (PW) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh per letter dated
14.9.2007, his services were continuously engaged by the respondent. The respondent gave him the
artificial breaks from the year 1999 to 30.09.2007. The persons who were working with him
(petitioner) or joined the service after him 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 him 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 his
(petitioner’s) services. The persons junior to him have been regularized by the respondent earlier to
him 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. He (petitioner) completed eight
1633
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
years of continuous service on 31.12.2006 and 10 years of continuous service on 31.12.2008. As
per the policy framed/approved in Mool Raj Upadhaya’s case, he is entitled to the regularization of
his services as work-charge beldar w.e.f. 1st January, 2007 in the pay scale of Rs.4910-10680/- with
all other perks and allowances. He 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 1999 to
30.09.2007 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
his 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. 01.01.2007 in the pay scale
of rupees 4900-10680/- and further directed to respondent to pay the arrear to the applicant
w.e.f. 01.01.2007 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 January, 1999. 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 his verbal requests from time to time, he was duly
made aware regarding the availability of the work. Continuous work for the entire month was
provided to the petitioner. He used to report for duty intermittently as per his 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
1634
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 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 by the petitioner.
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 1999 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. Shri Vijay Pal (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 denied that as and when the muster roll was issued in his name,
he was duly made aware that because of non-availability of the budget, the work for 10-20 days is
being provided to him. He denied that he 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.
1635
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
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 him. He denied that the petitioner never remained absent from his duties. He
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 w.e.f. 06.1.1999 by the respondent.
15. The mandays chart Ex. RW1/C clarifies that from the month of January, 2000 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 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 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, 2000 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,
1636
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
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. Due to these reasons, National Highway Division, Joginder Nagar is not a
necessary party to the petition.
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, he was
without any work. While testifying in the Court as PW1, the petitioner has given his age as 36
years. It is well known that a young man like the petitioner will not sit at home during the period he
is/was out of the service. The petitioner has failed to discharge the initial onus that during the
period of his forced idleness, he is/was not gainfully employed. For these reasons, he 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. He (petitioner) shall be entitled
to the seniority and continuity in service from the month of January, 2000 except back wages. The
respondent is also directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his 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, he (petitioner) shall be
entitled to the regularization from the date/month of the regularization of the services of his
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.
1637
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
27. File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open Court today this 15th day of May, 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. : 188/2013
Date of Institution : 15.11.2013
Date of Decision : 15.05.2014
Shri Santosh Kumar s/o Shri Bachitter Singh, r/o Village Jallar, P.O. Karsal, Tehsil Joginder
Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Versus
The Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD, 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, Dy. D.A.
AWARD
The below given reference has been received from the appropriate Government for
adjudication:
“Whether time to time termination of the services of Shri Santosh Kumar, S/O Shri
Bachitter Singh, R/O Village Jallar, P.O. Karsal, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi,
H.P. during August 2000 to 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 of 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 11.07.2000 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
1638
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
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 11.7.2000 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 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 petition is bad on account of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner.
His services were engaged pursuant to the verbal requests made by him (petitioner) from time to
time as per the requirement of the work and the availability of the funds.
On merits, paras 1 to 10 of the reply read thus:--
“1. That the contents of Para are admitted to the extent that the applicant has been engaged
in the department during w.e.f. 08/2000 by the Executive Engineer, National Highway
Division, H.P.P.W.D., Joginder Nagar as per detail of working days in Annexure-I.
This division is functioning w.e.f. January, 2004. No illegal or intentional breaks have
been given to applicant by this division.
2. That the content of this Para are wrong, incorrect hence denied. The applicant has been
engaged in the department by the Executive Engineer, National Highway Division,
H.P.P.W.D. Joginder Nagar up to December, 2003 and by this division w.e.f. January,
2004 as per the availability of works and funds. Moreover the applicant was willing to
work, as such and has not raised any dispute prior to this notice. The year-wise
working days of the work men whose name mentioned in the petition are attached in
the Annexure-II.
3. That the contents of this Para are not admitted. This Division Regularized the daily
wages workers who has completed 8 years or more continuous service with 240 days
only the service if Sh. Dalip Singh S/o Sh. Mangat Ram, Sh. Goutam Ram S/o Sh.
Rirku Ram, Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Sh. Sant Ram, Sh. Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh. Dharam
Singh, Sh. Bhagmal S/o Sh. Doulat Ram and Sh. Chanchal S/o Sh. Tirth Ram have
1639
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
been regularized and remaining workers detailed in para 2 are still working as daily
waged workers.
4. That the contents of the Para are admitted to extent that applicant has been engaged on
works w.e.f. 1/09/2007 continuous as per H.P. Govt Policy.
5. That the contents of this Para are wrong, incorrect and hence denied. It has already
been submitted in the para supra that this division is functioning w.e.f., Jan 2004. More
over the applicant was initially engaged with out following proper procedure and as
per the decision of Hon’ble High court of H.P. in CWP No.2270/2008 filed by
Sharmila Devi Shrama Versus Dr. Y.S. Parmar University and another on basis of
ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited in the judgment dated 14/05/2009 has been
decided that those appointees to the Govt. Posts whether on daily wages basis,
contract, adhoc or otherwise in whose case proper procedure has not been followed and
where the vacancies have not been advertised or proper interview, procedure had not
been held or where vacancies in the department did not exisit but the person have been
employed with out following proper procedure, there is no liability on the Govt. to
regularize such official.
6. That the contents of this Para are not admitted. This division is functioning w.e.f. Jan
2004 and the applicant has never requested this division regarding fictional break as
alleged in this para.
7. That the contents of this para are denied.
8. That the contents of this para are also not admitted. It is submitted that the applicant
has been engaged as per works and funds available and no any legal/intentional breaks
have been given to the applicant. Moreover the applicant has been initially engaged
without following the proper procedure and keeping in view the decision of the
Hon’ble High Court of H.P. in C.W.P. No.2270/2008 as stated in para 5 supra, the
applicant is not entitled for seniority for the period she has not worked in this
department.
9. Para being of judicial nature. Hence no comments.
10. Matter being legal in nature, hence no comments”. 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 20.02.2014, following issues were struck:
1. Whether time to time termination of the services/giving breaks in service to the
petitioner by the respondent from August, 2000 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 hit by the vice of delay and laches as alleged. If so, its
effect?
..OPR.
4. Relief.
1640
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
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
Relief. : Claim petition allowed in part vide operative portion of the Award.
REASONS FOR FINDINGS
ISSUE NO.1
8. Shri Santosh Kumar (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), Joginder Nagar 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.
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.
1641
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
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 August, 2000. The respondent (RW1) did not
whisper 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 date of his initial engagement 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
date/month of his initial engagement 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. 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
1642
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
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.
21. While testifying in the Court as PW1, the petitioner has given his age as 38 years. It is
well known that a young man like the petitioner will not sit at home during the period he is/was out
of the service. The petitioner has failed to discharge the initial onus that during the period of his
forced idleness, he is/was not gainfully employed. For these reasons, he is not entitled to the wages
for break period.
22. This issue is also decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
RELIEF (ISSUE NO.4)
23. 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
31.8.2007 being artificial/fictional are held to be wrong and illegal. He (petitioner) shall be entitled
to the seniority and continuity in service from the month/date of his initial engagement i.e. August,
2000, except back wages. The respondent is also directed to consider the case of the petitioner for
regularization of his 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, he (petitioner) shall be entitled to the regularization from the date/month of the
regularization of the services of his junior(s). Parties to bear their own costs.
24. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
25. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the
official gazette.
26. File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open Court today this 15th day of May, 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. : 203/2013
Date of Institution : 15.11.2013
Date of Decision : 15.05.2014
1643
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
Shri Krishan Singh s/o Shri Diwan Chand, r/o Village Bada Thana, P.O. Panjalag, Tehsil
Joginder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Versus
The Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD, 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, Dy. D.A.
AWARD
The below given reference has been received from the appropriate Government for
adjudication:
“Whether time to time termination of the services of Shri Krishan Singh, S/O Diwan Chand,
R/O Village Bada Thana, P.O. Panjalag, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. during
1999 to 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 of 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 01.10.1998 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 01.10.1998 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
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
1644
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
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 petition is bad on account of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner.
His services were engaged pursuant to the verbal requests made by him (petitioner) from time to
time as per the requirement of the work and the availability of the funds.
On merits, paras 1 to 10 of the reply read thus:--
“1. That the contents of Para are admitted to the extent that the applicant has been engaged
in the department during w.e.f. 10/1998 by the Executive Engineer, National Highway
Division, H.P.P.W.D., Joginder Nagar as per detail of working days in Annexure-I.
This division is functioning w.e.f. January, 2004. No illegal or intentional breaks have
been given to applicant by this division.
2. That the content of this Para are wrong, incorrect hence denied. The applicant has been
engaged in the department by the Executive Engineer, National Highway Division,
H.P.P.W.D. Joginder Nagar up to December, 2003 and by this division w.e.f. January,
2004 as per the availability of works and funds. Moreover the applicant was willing to
work, as such and has not raised any dispute prior to this notice. The year-wise
working days of the work men whose name mentioned in the petition are attached in
the Annexure-II.
3. That the contents of this Para are not admitted. This Division Regularized the daily
wages workers who has completed 8 years or more continuous service with 240 days
only the service if Sh. Dalip Singh S/o Sh. Mangat Ram, Sh. Goutam Ram S/o Sh.
Rirku Ram, Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Sh. Sant Ram, Sh. Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh. Dharam
Singh, Sh. Bhagmal S/o Sh. Doulat Ram and Sh. Chanchal S/o Sh. Tirth Ram have
been regularized and remaining workers detailed in para 2 are still working as daily
waged workers.
4. That the contents of the Para are admitted to extent that applicant has been engaged on
works w.e.f. 1/09/2007 continuous as per H.P. Govt Policy.
5. That the contents of this Para are wrong, incorrect and hence denied. It has already
been submitted in the para supra that this division is functioning w.e.f., Jan 2004. More
over the applicant was initially engaged with out following proper procedure and as
per the decision of Hon’ble High court of H.P. in CWP No.2270/2008 filed by
Sharmila Devi Shrama Versus Dr. Y.S. Parmar University and another on basis of
ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited in the judgment dated 14/05/2009 has been
decided that those appointees to the Govt. Posts whether on daily wages basis,
contract, adhoc or otherwise in whose case proper procedure has not been followed and
where the vacancies have not been advertised or proper interview, procedure had not
been held or where vacancies in the department did not exisit but the person have been
employed with out following proper procedure, there is no liability on the Govt. to
regularize such official.
6. That the contents of this Para are not admitted. This division is functioning w.e.f. Jan
2004 and the applicant has never requested this division regarding fictional break as
alleged in this para.
1645
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
7. That the contents of this para are denied.
8. That the contents of this para are also not admitted. It is submitted that the applicant
has been engaged as per works and funds available and no any legal/intentional breaks
have been given to the applicant. Moreover the applicant has been initially engaged
without following the proper procedure and keeping in view the decision of the
Hon’ble High Court of H.P. in C.W.P. No.2270/2008 as stated in para 5 supra, the
applicant is not entitled for seniority for the period she has not worked in this
department.
9. Para being of judicial nature. Hence no comments.
10. Matter being legal in nature, hence no comments”.
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 20.02.2014, following issues were struck:
1. Whether time to time termination of the services/giving breaks in service to the
petitioner by the respondent from the year 1999 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 hit by the vice of delay and laches as alleged. If so, its
effect?
..OPR.
4. 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
Relief. : Claim petition allowed in part vide operative portion of the Award.
REASONS FOR FINDINGS
ISSUE NO.1
8. Shri Krishan 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
1646
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
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), Joginder Nagar 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.
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 September, 1998. The respondent (RW1) did
not whisper 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 January, 1999 to
31.8.2007, work for the entire month was not provided to the petitioner by the respondent. The
1647
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
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 January, 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. 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.
21. While testifying in the Court as PW1, the petitioner has given his age as 53 years. It is
well known that a person like the petitioner will not sit at home during the period he is/was out of
the service. The petitioner has failed to discharge the initial onus that during the period of his
forced idleness, he is/was not gainfully employed. For these reasons, he is not entitled to the wages
for break period.
22. This issue is also decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
RELIEF (ISSUE NO.4)
1648
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
23. 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
31.8.2007 being artificial/fictional are held to be wrong and illegal. He (petitioner) shall be entitled
to the seniority and continuity in service from the month of January, 1999, except back wages. The
respondent is also directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his 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, he (petitioner) shall be
entitled to the regularization from the date/month of the regularization of the services of his
junior(s). Parties to bear their own costs.
24. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
25. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the
official gazette.
26. File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open Court today this 15th day of May, 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. : 204/2013
Date of Institution : 15.11.2013
Date of Decision : 15.05.2014
Shri Hoshiyar Singh s/o Shri Hachu Ram, r/o Village Kashiri, P.O. Balh Kawar, Tehsil
Joginder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Versus
The Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD, 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, Dy. D.A.
AWARD
The below given reference has been received from the appropriate Government for
adjudication:
1649
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
“Whether time to time termination of the services of Shri Hoshiyar Singh, S/O Shri Hachu
Ram, R/O Village Kashiri, P.O. Balh Kawar, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.
during 1999 to 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 of 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 25.09.1998 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 25.09.1998 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
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 petition is bad on account of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner.
His services were engaged pursuant to the verbal requests made by him (petitioner) from time to
time as per the requirement of the work and the availability of the funds.
On merits, paras 1 to 10 of the reply read thus:--
“1. That the contents of Para are admitted to the extent that the applicant has been engaged
in the department during w.e.f. 10/1998 by the Executive Engineer, National Highway
1650
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
Division, H.P.P.W.D., Joginder Nagar as per detail of working days in Annexure-I.
This division is functioning w.e.f. January, 2004. No illegal or intentional breaks have
been given to applicant by this division.
2. That the content of this Para are wrong, incorrect hence denied. The applicant has been
engaged in the department by the Executive Engineer, National Highway Division,
H.P.P.W.D. Joginder Nagar up to December, 2003 and by this division w.e.f. January,
2004 as per the availability of works and funds. Moreover the applicant was willing to
work, as such and has not raised any dispute prior to this notice. The year-wise
working days of the work men whose name mentioned in the petition are attached in
the Annexure-II.
3. That the contents of this Para are not admitted. This Division Regularized the daily
wages workers who has completed 8 years or more continuous service with 240 days
only the service if Sh. Dalip Singh S/o Sh. Mangat Ram, Sh. Goutam Ram S/o Sh.
Rirku Ram, Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Sh. Sant Ram, Sh. Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh. Dharam
Singh, Sh. Bhagmal S/o Sh. Doulat Ram and Sh. Chanchal S/o Sh. Tirth Ram have
been regularized and remaining workers detailed in para 2 are still working as daily
waged workers.
4. That the contents of the Para are admitted to extent that applicant has been engaged on
works w.e.f. 1/09/2007 continuous as per H.P. Govt Policy.
5. That the contents of this Para are wrong, incorrect and hence denied. It has already
been submitted in the para supra that this division is functioning w.e.f., Jan 2004. More
over the applicant was initially engaged with out following proper procedure and as
per the decision on Hon’ble High court of H.P. in CWP No.2270/2008 filed by
Sharmila Devi Shrama Versus Dr. Y.S. Parmar University and another on basis of
ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited in the judgment dated 14/05/2009 has been
decided that those appointees to the Govt. Posts whether on daily wages basis,
contract, adhoc or otherwise in whose case proper procedure has not been followed and
where the vacancies have not been advertised or proper interview, procedure had not
been held or where vacancies in the department did not exisit but the person have been
employed with out following proper procedure, there is no liability on the Govt. to
regularize such official.
6. That the contents of this Para are not admitted. This division is functioning w.e.f. Jan
2004 and the applicant has never requested this division regarding fictional break as
alleged in this para.
7. That the contents of this para are denied.
8. That the contents of this para are also not admitted. It is submitted that the applicant
has been engaged as per works and funds available and no any legal/intentional breaks
have been given to the applicant. Moreover the applicant has been initially engaged
without following the proper procedure and keeping in view the decision of the
Hon’ble High Court of H.P. in C.W.P. No.2270/2008 as stated in para 5 supra, the
applicant is not entitled for seniority for the period she has not worked in this
department.
9. Para being of judicial nature. Hence no comments.
10. Matter being legal in nature, hence no comments”.
1651
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
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 20.02.2014, following issues were struck:
1. Whether time to time termination of the services/giving breaks in service to the
petitioner by the respondent from the year 1999 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 hit by the vice of delay and laches as alleged. If so, its
effect?
..OPR.
4. 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
Relief. : Claim petition allowed in part vide operative portion of the Award.
REASONS FOR FINDINGS
ISSUE NO. 1.
8. Shri Hoshiyar 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), Joginder Nagar was provided by the Himachal Pradesh
Government. The budget for the execution of the works carried out by the National Highway
1652
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
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.
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 October, 1998. The respondent (RW1) did not
whisper 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 January, 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 January, 1999 to 31st August, 2007 as per the provisions contained in Section 25-B of the
1653
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
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. 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.
21. While testifying in the Court as PW1, the petitioner has given his age as 44 years. It is
well known that a young man like the petitioner will not sit at home during the period he is/was out
of the service. The petitioner has failed to discharge the initial onus that during the period of his
forced idleness, he is/was not gainfully employed. For these reasons, he is not entitled to the wages
for break period.
22. This issue is also decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
RELIEF (ISSUE NO. 4)
23. 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
31.8.2007 being artificial/fictional are held to be wrong and illegal. He (petitioner) shall be entitled
to the seniority and continuity in service from the month of January, 1999, except back wages. The
respondent is also directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his 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, he (petitioner) shall be
entitled to the regularization from the date/month of the regularization of the services of his
junior(s). Parties to bear their own costs.
24. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
25. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the
official gazette.
1654
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
26. File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open Court today this 15th day of May, 2013.
(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. : 134/2013
Date of Institution : 29.08.2013
Date of Decision : 15.05.2014
Shri Ghanshyam Singh s/o Shri Lachhman Dass, r/o Village Majhwar, P.O. Jalpehar, Tehsil
Joginder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Versus
The Sr. Executive Engineer, Electrical Division HPSEB Ltd. Joginder Nagar, Distt. 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. Pradeep Dogra, Adv.
AWARD
The below given reference has been received from the appropriate Government for
adjudication:
“Whether termination of the services of Sh. Ghanshyam Singh S/O Sh. Lachhman Dass,
Village-Majhwar, P.O. Jalpehar, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. by The Sr.
Executive Engineer, Electrical Division HPSEB Ltd. Joginder Nagar, Distt. Mandi w.e.f.
01.7.2001 without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is
legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and
compensation the above worker is entitled to from above employer?”
2. The case of the petitioner (as set out in the prolix statement of claim/demand) reads
thus:--
“1. That it is submitted here that the services of applicant have been initially engaged by
the respondent on daily waged basis on muster roll w.e.f. 11.10.1999 vide muster roll
no. 223 and he had interrupted worked up to 01.07.2001 under the Assistant Engineer,
HPSEB, Sub Division Joginder Nagar and during the above said period his service
have been engaged and disengaged by the respondent as given him fictional breaks
1655
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
from time to time to not letting to complete 240 days in continuous service under
section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, whereas at the time of his initial
appointment he has not given any appointed order by the respondent.
2. That it is submitted that when all of sudden the services of applicant have been
unlawfully terminated by the respondent w.e.f. 01.07.2001 vide verbal order and the
applicant immediately filed the O.A. No.1811/2001 before the Hon’ble Administrative
Tribunal against his alleged termination from services and Hon’ble Administrative
Tribunal vide interim orders dated 14.12.2001 directed the respondent to re-engage the
applicant.
3. That it is submitted that the orders of the Hon’ble Tribunal has been assailed by the
respondent before the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh vide CWP No.
986/2002 and the Hon’ble High Court decided the same vide its judgment dated
13.04.2007 whereby the order of the Tribunal was set aside for want of jurisdiction
with the liberty to the applicant to approach the appropriate forum. Thereafter the
applicant had filed the demand notice dated 26.03.2008 under Section 2-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against his illegal termination w.e.f. 01.07.2001. During
the conciliation proceeding the respondent submitted the parawise written reply to the
demand notice along with mandays chart before the Conciliation Officer and taken the
stand that the applicant had worked under their control up to 31.03.2000 and after
conciliation failed the appropriate government has referred the dispute to the Hon’ble
this Court for adjudication vide notification dated 13.07.2010 and relying upon the
record of the respondent mentioned the date of termination of the applicant as
01.04.2000 instead of 01.07.2001.
4. That it is submitted that the said dispute was registered by the Hon’ble Court as
Reference no.213/2010 and during the proceeding before the Hon’ble Court the
respondent filed the written reply along with mandays chart and the respondent took a
contrary stand that the applicant had worked up to 0.1.07.2001 whereas in the
conciliation proceeding the respondent took the stand that the applicant had worked
only up to 31.03.2000, so the case of the applicant stood beyond the term of reference
and therefore, accepting the request of the ld A.R. and counsel of the applicant the
Hon’ble Court vide order dated 19.04.2012 dismissed the reference as withdrawn with
the right to the applicant to raise the fresh industrial dispute.
5. That it is submitted here that the applicant immediately raised his industrial dispute
under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide demand notice dated
20.04.2012 and copy of the same was forwarded to the Ld Conciliation Officer
Joginder Nagar. The Labour Inspector-cum-Conciliation Officer tried to settle the
dispute amicably, but the same could not be settle during the course of conciliation
proceeding, thereafter the conciliation officer sent the failure report to the appropriate
government for making the reference under Section 12 (4) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 and the appropriate government again referred the dispute to the Hon’ble
this Court vide notification dated 16.08.2013 for adjudication.
6. That it is submitted here that the services of applicant had been unlawfully terminated
by the respondent w.e.f. 01.07.2001 and before terminating his services he has not
served any show cause notice, charge-sheet neither the enquiry had been conducted
against him nor the retrenchment compensation has been paid to him and without
complying the same every termination is null, void and abinitio and the respondent has
also violated the principle of natural justice.
1656
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
7. That it is submitted here that while terminating the services ofapplicant the respondent
has not followed the principle of Last Come First Go whereas persons junior to
applicant have been retained continuously without any breaks namely Sh Tara Chand
S/o Sh Daya Ram, Lekh Ram S/o Sh Chamaru Ram and the same has been violated
under Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, even that after termination the
services of applicant new fresh hand have been appointed by the respondent namely
Sher Singh (21.09.2001), Dina Nath (21.11.2001), Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh Amar Singh
(21.02.2002) and Bhag Singh S/o Sh Ranchu Ram (09.04.2003) but the applicant has
not given any opportunity for reemployment and the same has been violated under
Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
8. That it is submitted here that one Sh Piar Chand S/o Sh Sohan Singh R/o Village
Banon, P.O. Balh Joli, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. whose services
have been engaged by the respondent on muster roll w.e.f. 25.02.1999 and he has been
worked only 43 days with the respondent and thereafter his services have been
terminated by the respondent and the said workman has been raised the industrial
dispute against the department and his unlawful termination has been set aside by the
Hon’ble this Court in the violation of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 and also grant him 50% back wages including seniority and continuity of
service. Thereafter the respondent/department has been assailed the award before the
Hon’ble High Court but the same has been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court and
thereafter the services of said workman have been reengaged by the respondent w.e.f.
02.02.2007 and also pay him Rs.75000/- approximately as back wages and now the
said workman has been granted the work-charge status in regular pay scale in the year
2010.
9. That it is submitted here that due to the contrary stand taken by the respondent before
the Conciliation Officer and before the Hon’ble this Court, the earlier reference no.
213/2010 has been withdrawn by the applicant due to the negligence of the respondent,
so the act of the respondent is unfair labour practice and the respondent harassed the
applicant since his illegal termination to till today. It is again submitted here that the
applicant is belonging to a poor family and have no source of income to maintain his
family and also not in a position to give the good education to his children. It is further
submitted here that the persons who were working along with applicant have been
regularized by the respondent w.e.f. February, 2007 but the applicant is still fighting
for his grievance due to the false/wrong reply filed by the respondent before the
Conciliation Officer, hence the applicant is entitled full back wages from the date of
illegal termination, whereas the applicant had raised his dispute before the Hon’ble
Administrative Tribunal immediately after his illegal termination and whereas the
applicant has spent approximately Rs. 1,00,000/- in the proceedings before the Hon’ble
Administrative Tribunal, High Court, Conciliation Officer, Hon’ble this Court, again
before the Conciliation Officer which he has spent borrowing loan from his near &
dears & relatives after great difficulty, so the Hon’ble Court may kindly be determine
the facts of illegal termination and also determine the facts under which the applicant
has withdrawn his earlier reference no. 213/2010 and grant the full back wages in
favour of the petitioner.
10. That the Act of respondent to terminated the services of applicant w.e.f. 01.07.2001 is
highly unjustified, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the mandatory
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the same may kindly be set aside
on the above ground. It is submitted here that the applicant is still unemployed and not
1657
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
gainfully employed anywhere from the date of his alleged termination dated
01.07.2001 and he is entitled for full back wages.
Relief :
It is therefore prayed in view of the aforesaid submissions made here in above the
Hon’ble Court may kindly be granted the following relief in the favour of applicant.
(i) The Hon’ble Court kindly be set aside the illegal termination order w.e.f.
01.07.2001 and directed to respondent to reinstate the services of applicant with
full back wages, seniority and in continuity of service with all consequential
service benefits.
(ii) The Hon’ble Court again directed to respondent to grant the work charge status to
the applicant after completion of 10 years continuos service w.e.f. 01.07.2011 in
the pay scale of Rs 4900-10680/-.
(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 and the litigation cost of
the petition Rs.1,00,000/- may also be awarded in the favoru of applicant.
(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. The same is wholly misconceived and groundless.
The claim petition is baseless. The same is flagrant abuse of the process of law. The petition has
been instituted to harass and blackmail him (respondent) as well as derive the undue advantages.
The petitioner has no cause of action and locus standi to sue. He is estopped from filing the claim
petition by his act, conduct and acquiescence. The petition is frivolous and vexatious. The
claimant/petitioner has concealed the true and material facts from the Court. He has not approached
the Court with clean hands. The petition is hopelessly time barred.
On merits, paras 1 to 7 of the reply are reproduced below verbatim for ready reference:--
“(1) That the contents of Para 1 of the petition are legal and matter of record and hence the
petitioner be put to strict proof of the same in accordance with the provisions of law.
However it is submitted that the applicant was initially engaged as casual beldar in
different subdivisions w.e.f. 11-10-1999 and remained engaged upto 20-04-2001. The
mandays chart of the applicant is placed on record which shows that the applicant the
efficiency and have never worked continuously for 240 days with the respdt. The
applicant initially engaged on 11-10-99 to 20-10-99 to carry out the urgent nature of
work and on completion the service of the applicant were dispensed w.e.f. 21-11-1999.
Again on availability of work and funds the applicant was again re-engaged on his own
request on 1-3-2000 and he worked as such up to 20-7-2000 in sub-division Chauntra.
The applicant was again reengaged w.e.f. 21-1-2001 in sub-division Lad-bharol, again
on 21-4-2001 to 1-7-2001 in sub-division Chauntra to carry out the urgent work of
casual work and on completion of the said work his engagement automatically came to
an end when no alternative/urgent work was available with the respdt. It is wrong and
incorrect that the respdt has given any fictional breaks to the applicant.
1658
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
(2) That the contents of Para 2 of the application are wrong, false, incorrect that the respdt
has unlawfully terminated the services of the applicant w.e.f. 1-7-2001. Rests of the
contents are not disputed and hence need no reply. It is submitted that the applicant
worked up to 1-7-2001 and thereafter left the job of his own sweet will, without any
reason and without any intimation.
(3) That the contents of Para’s 3 to 5 of the application are matter of record, hence not
disputed and need no reply, but the applicant be put to strict proof of the same in
accordance with the provisions of the Act and law.
(4) That the contents of Para’s 6 & 7 of the petition are wrong, false, incorrect and hence
denied. It is submitted that the applicant was engaged as casual beldar for urgent nature
of work and funds and availability. The applicant has worked with the respdt for less
than 240 days hence the applicant has not been served with the notice and moreover he
was hired laborer and was paid according to his work. Hence no question of
termination of applicant arises in any manner. The casual services/duties rendered by
the applicant do not necessarily mean his absorption as regular beldar or his continuity
in the service. No junior casual worker to the applicant never been promoted or
engaged by the respdt till date. The alleged persons in this Para are only skilled and
technically know-how literate persons and only because of this they have been. It is
worth mentioning here that the applicant, being a casual beldar is not covered under
the Act and hence there is no violation of section 25-H and 25-G.
(5) That the contents of Para 8 of the application/petition are false, incorrect, baseless,
without any regime & reason and hence denied in Toto. It is submitted that the facts of
the case of Sh Piar Singh as alleged were different and are not applicable to the case of
present applicant.
(6) That the contents of Para 9 of the application are altogether false, incorrect, baseless,
without any regime & reason and hence denied in Toto. It is submitted that res-judicata
must apply to maintain the decorum of the Hon’ble Tribunal as the applicant has not
taken permission from the hon’ble tribunal to file a fresh petition on the same cause of
action at the time of withdrawing the earlier reference no 213/2010. Hence the petition
deserves dismissal on this score alone to maintain the dignity of the Hon’ble Tribunal.
(7) That the contents of Para 10 of the petition are totally wrong, false, incorrect and hence
the applicant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in RELIEF’s HEAD i.e. in sub-
para’s (i) to (iv)”.
In these circumstances, the respondent prays that the petition in hand being
meritless be dismissed with special costs.
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 28.11.2013, following issues were struck.
1. Whether the termination of the services of the petitioner by the respondent w.e.f.
01-07-2001 is illegal and unjustified as alleged?
..OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner has a cause of action?
..OPP.
3. Whether the petitioner has locus standi to sue?
..OPP.
1659
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form?
..OPR.
5. Whether the petitioner has concealed the true and material facts from the Court as
alleged. If so, its effect?
..OPR.
6. Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the claim petition by his act and
conduct as alleged. If so, its effect?
..OPR.
7. Whether the petition is hit by the vice of delay and laches as alleged?
..OPR.
8. 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 : Yes
Issue No.4 : Not pressed
Issue No.5 : Not pressed
Issue No.6 : Not pressed
Issue No.7 : No
Relief. : Claim petition allowed in part vide operative portion of the Award.
REASONS FOR FINDINGS
ISSUE NO.1
8. Shri Ghanshyam Singh (pt.) 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 did not complete 240 days of work in any
calendar year of his employment. He denied that his services used to be engaged by the respondent
from time to time for undertaking the urgent/necessary works. He admitted that no intentional
break in service was provided to him by the respondent. He denied that his services were never
terminated by the respondent and he left the job voluntarily. He does not know that Shri Pyar Singh
worked continuously. He denied that his services used to be engaged for specific work only to his
knowledge. He also denied that at the time of the engagement of his services, the respondent used
to tell him that his employment will automatically come to an end on the completion of the work.
He denied that no person junior to him is serving the respondent/Board. He refuted that after
01.7.2001, no new/fresh hands have been engaged by the respondent. He even denied that to gain
the employment and other undue benefits, he has instituted a phoney petition.
9. Conversely, Shri Atul Kumar Mehta, Sr. Executive Engineer, HPSEB Division
Joginder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. (respondent) testified as RW1. He corroborated on oath the
contents of the reply filed by him. Ex. RW1/A is the affidavit submitted in terms of O18 R4 CPC.
In the cross-examination, he admitted that the services of the petitioner were initially
engaged w.e.f. 11.10.1999 vide muster roll No.223. No appointment order/letter was issued in the
name of the petitioner. He admitted that the petitioner worked up-to 01.7.2001. He denied that on
1660
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
the said date the services of the petitioner were terminated by a verbal order. Self stated, since the
work was over, the services of the petitioner came to an end automatically. He admitted that the
work continued even after 01.7.2001 i.e. the date of the retrenchment in question. He admitted that
the persons junior to the petitioner are working under him. Volunteered, they have been re-engaged
as per the orders of the Court. S/Shri Sher Singh and Dina Nath were re-employed as per the orders
of the Court. At the time of their re-engagement, an opportunity of reemployment was not afforded
to the petitioner.
10. Ex. PW1/B is the copy of the demand notice dated 26.3.2008 served upon the
respondent by the petitioner.
11. Ex. PW1/C is the copy of the reply dated 27.3.2009 submitted by the respondent
before the Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, Mandi Zone Mandi during the conciliation
proceedings.
12. Ex. PW1/D is the copy of the mandays, which was submitted by the respondent, before
the Labour Officer at the time of conciliation.
13. Ex. PW1/E is the copy of the notification/reference, which was previously issued by
the appropriate Govt. on 13th July, 2010.
14. Ex. PW1/F is the copy of the reply filed by the respondent before this Court in the
earlier reference No.213/2010 titled as Sh. Ghanshyam Singh versus Sr. Executive Engineer,
HPSEBL, Electrical Division, Joginder Nagar.
15. Ex. PW1/G is the copy of the mandays chart pertaining to the petitioner which was
annexed to the reply Ex. PW1/F by the respondent.
16. Ex. PW1/H is the copy of the order dated 19.4.2012 passed by this Court/Tribunal in
the earlier reference No.213/2010.
17. Ex. PW1/I is the copy of the demand notice dated 20.4.2012 served upon the
respondent by the petitioner.
18. Ex. PW1/J is the copy of the reply dated 15.9.2012 submitted by the respondent before
the Labour Inspector-cum-Conciliation Officer, Joginder Nagar during the conciliation proceedings
after the receipt of the demand notice dated 20.4.2012 (Ex. PW1/I).
19. Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947, ‘the Act’ for short)
mandates that the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal shall confine its adjudication to the points of
dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government and the matters incidental thereto. No
reference has been received from the appropriate Government regarding providing the
artificial/fictional breaks in service to the petitioner by the respondent during the course of the
employment. Therefore, the said controversy, if any, between the parties cannot be looked into by
this Court being beyond the terms of the reference. Otherwise too, during his cross-examination,
the petitioner (PW1) admitted that no fictional break in service was given to him by the respondent
during the period of the engagement.
20. It is the admitted case of the parties that the services of the petitioner were engaged as
a daily wager on 11.10.1999 and he worked intermittently as such up-to 01.7.2001. The respondent
has not placed/exhibited on the file any document evidencing that the services of the petitioner used
to be engaged for a specific period and work to his knowledge.
1661
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
21. The version of the petitioner is that on 01.7.2001, his services were unlawfully
terminated by the respondent by a verbal order. While denying the said fact, the respondent has
pleaded that the petitioner left the job of his own accord and free volition.
It is well known that the abandonment has to be proved like any other fact by the
respondent/employer. Simply because a workman fails to report for duty, it cannot be presumed
that he has left/abandoned the job. There is nothing on the record to show that a notice was served
upon the petitioner by the respondent calling upon him to resume his duties after he allegedly
left/abandoned the same. Absence from duty is serious misconduct. Admittedly, no disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by the respondent for his alleged willful absence
from duty. The plea of abandonment put forth by the respondent is not established.
22. As already mentioned, the respondent has not placed/exhibited on the record any
document evidencing that the services of the petitioner were engaged for a particular work and
period of his knowledge. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondent to say that the
services of the petitioner came to an end automatically on 1st July, 2001 on the completion of the
work.
23. The petitioner (PW1) in his cross-examination admitted that he did not complete 240
days of work in any calendar year of his employment. The said fact finds support from the mandays
chart Ex. PW1/G, which is not in dispute. That being so, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act
are not attracted in this case.
24. The respondent (RW1) during the cross-examination admitted that the persons junior
to the petitioner are working under him. Of course, he (RW1) hastened to add voluntarily that the
juniors have been re-engaged as per the orders passed by the Court. Seniority list of the regular T-
mates as it stood on 01.1.2002 in respect of Electrical Division, HPSEB, Joginder Nagar is there on
the record. Its perusal discloses that Shri Manohar Lal (serial No.37) and Shri Amar Singh (serial
No.48) were appointed by the respondent on 19.9.2000 and 01.9.2000, respectively. They are junior
to the petitioner, whose services were engaged on 11.10.1999. Both these persons are admittedly
working with the respondent/Board. This indicates that the respondent failed to abide by the
principle of ‘last come first go’. His action thus contravenes the provisions of Section 25-G of the
Act.
25. Not only this, the particulars of daily waged beldars as it stood on 30.9.2007 in respect
of the Electrical Division, HPSEB, Joginder Nagar are there on the file. They reveal that Shri
Sanjay Kumar (serial No.74) and Shri Bhag Singh (serial No.76) were appointed by the respondent
on 21.2.2002 and 09.4.2003, respectively. The services of these two persons were engaged after the
disengagement of the services of the petitioner on 01.7.2001. There is nothing on the file to show
that at the time of engaging new/fresh hands, an opportunity of re-employment was afforded to the
petitioner by the respondent. Thus, it can be safely said that the respondent has also flouted the
provisions of Section 25-H of the Act. Needless to say that for deriving the benefit under Sections
25-G and 25- H of the Act, a workman need not complete 240 days of work in a block of 12
calendar months anterior to the date of his termination.
26. Such being the situation, I have no hesitation to conclude that the retrenchment of the
services of the petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. 01.7.2001 is illegal and unjustified.
27. This issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
ISSUES NO. 2 AND 3
1662
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
28. Keeping in mind my findings on issue No.1 above, it is held that the petitioner has a
cause of action. He also has the locus standi to sue.
29. These issues are also decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
ISSUES NO. 4, 5 AND 6
30. Not pressed.
ISSUE NO.7
31. 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.
32. In Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division,
Kota versus Mohan Lal, Civil Appeal No. 6795 of 2013, decided on 16th August, 2013, by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the issue regarding delay in raising the industrial dispute by the
workman was discussed. Paras 19 and 20 of the judgment read thus:--
“19. In a subsequent decision in Balbir Singh, this Court observed that Ajaib Singh was
confined to the facts and circumstances of that case. It is true that in Balbir Singh, the
plea of delay was raised before the Industrial Tribunal but we would emphasize the
passage from Balbir Singh where it was said: “Whether relief to the workman should
be denied on the ground of delay or it should be appropriately moulded is at the
discretion of the Tribunal depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. No
doubt the discretion is to be exercised judicially.
20. We are clearly of the view that though Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the
reference made under the I.D. Act but delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely an
important circumstance which the Labour Court must keep in view at the time of
exercise of discretion irrespective of whether or not such objection has been raised by
the other side. The legal position laid down by this Court in Gitam Singh that before
exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant
factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length
of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and the delay in raising
industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute, must be invariably
followed.”
1663
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
33. In Mohan Lal’s case (cited supra), the workman/petitioner worked as a work-charged
employee for 286 days. The industrial dispute was raised by him after six years of the termination.
The Hon’ble Apex Court opined that the interest of justice will be sub-served if in lieu of
reinstatement, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac) is paid to the workman by the employer.
34. Now comes the all important question as to what relief should be granted/awarded to
the petitioner?
The impugned termination took place on 01.7.2001. The same is held to be bad in the eyes
of law as it contravenes the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act.
35. The termination in question was immediately challenged by the petitioner by
instituting Original Application No.1811/2001 before the erstwhile Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal. Thereafter, the matter went to the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal
Pradesh as well as proceeded before this Court as reference No.213/2010. The previous reference
No.213/2010 was disposed of by this Court/Tribunal per order dated 19.4.2012, the copy of which
is Ex. PW1/H.
36. After the decision of the earlier reference, a fresh demand notice dated 20.4.2012 (Ex.
PW1/I) was served upon the respondent by the petitioner. On the basis of the said demand notice,
conciliation proceedings were initiated by the Labour Inspector-cum-Conciliation Officer, Joginder
Nagar. Pursuant to the report under Section 12(4) of the Act submitted by him, the reference in
hand was issued by the appropriate Government (Labour Commissioner, H.P.).
37. From the evidence available on the record, it can be gathered that the industrial dispute
was raised by the petitioner without any delay. He cannot be made to suffer due to the period spent
in the proceedings before the various Courts/Forums or the filing of the wrong mandays chart (Ex.
PW1/D) by the respondent. As mentioned earlier, it is the admitted case of the respondent that the
persons junior to the petitioner are serving under him and their services have been re-engaged as
per the orders passed by the Court. In order to maintain parity amongst the workmen, the petitioner
is also entitled to the reinstatement of his services.
38. While testifying in the Court as PW1, the petitioner has given his age as 45 years. It is
well known that a young man like the petitioner will not sit at home during the period he is/was out
of the job. Moreover, during his cross-examination, the petitioner (PW1) admitted that he earns his
livelihood by doing the work of agriculture. The petitioner has failed to discharge the initial onus
that during the period of his forced idleness, he is/was not gainfully employed. For these reasons,
he is not entitled to the back wages.
39. This issue too is decided in favour of the petitioner and against his opponent.
RELIEF (ISSUE NO.8)
40. As a sequel to my findings on the various issues above, the instant claim petition
succeeds in part and the same is partly allowed. The termination of the services of the petitioner by
the respondent w.e.f. 01.7.2001 is set aside and quashed. The respondent is directed to reinstate the
services of the petitioner forthwith. He shall be entitled to the seniority and continuity in service
from the date of his illegal termination i.e. 01.7.2001 except back wages. Parties to bear their own
costs.
41. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
1664
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
42. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the
official gazette.
43. File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open Court today this 15th day of May, 2014.
(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. : 143/2014
Sh. Baldev Kumar s/o Shri Jagdish Chand, r/o Village and P.O. Hangloh, Tehsil Palampur,
District Kangra, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Versus
The Vice Chancellor/Registrar, Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishav
Vidyalya (CSKHPKV), Palampur, District Kangra, H.P.
..Respondent.
20-05-2014
Present : Sh. N.L. Kaundal, A.R. for the petitioner.
Sh. R.C. Puri, Adv. has filed the power of attorney favouring
Sh. Rahul Gupta, Adv. on behalf of the respondent.
Ld. Authorised Representative for the petitioner/claimant has made the below given
statement in the Court today:--
“As per the instructions received by me from my client (Sh. Baldev Kumar) I do not want to
proceed with this reference. It be dismissed as withdrawn.
RO & AC
P.J.”
Sd/-
20-05-2014
2. 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. Be consigned to the Records after due completion.
Announced:
(RAJAN GUPTA)
Presiding Judge,
Labour Court-cum-Industrial
Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P.
1665
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
IN THE COURT OF RAJAN GUPTA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DHARAMSHALA, H.P.
Ref: No. : 146/2014
Sh. Pawan Kumar s/o Shri Shakti Chand, r/o Village and P.O. Batahan, Tehsil Palampur,
District Kangra, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Versus
The Vice Chancellor/Registrar, Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishav
Vidyalya (CSKHPKV), Palampur, District Kangra, H.P.
..Respondent.
20-05-2014 Present: None for the petitioner.
Sh. R.C. Puri, Adv. has filed the power of attorney favouring
Sh. Rahul Gupta, Adv. on behalf of 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 service/ knowledge. It is already
2.30 p.m. This indicates that the claimant/petitioner is not interested to pursue the matter. Since the
petitioner/workman has failed to come present and file any statement of claim/demand, it cannot be
said that the termination of the services of the petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. March / April,
2010 is illegal and unjustified. Parties to bear their own costs.
2. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
3. A copy of this Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for further
necessary action at its end.
4. 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. : 153/2014
Sh. Birbal s/o Shri Man Chand, r/o Village and P.O. Chimbelhaar, Tehsil Palampur, District
Kangra, H.P.
..Petitioner.
Versus
The Vice Chancellor/Registrar, Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishav
Vidyalya (CSKHPKV), Palampur, District Kangra, H.P.
..Respondent.
20-05-2014 Present : None for the petitioner.
Sh. R.C. Puri, Adv. has filed the power of attorney favouring
Sh. Rahul Gupta, Adv. on behalf of the respondent.
1666
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
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 service/ knowledge. It is already
2.30 p.m. This indicates that the claimant/petitioner is not interested to pursue the matter. Since the
petitioner/workman has failed to come present and file any statement of claim/demand, it cannot be
said that the termination of the services of the petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. March / April,
2010 is illegal and unjustified. Parties to bear their own costs.
2. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.
3. A copy of this Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for further
necessary action at its end.
4. Be consigned to the Records after due completion.
Announced:
(RAJAN GUPTA)
Presiding Judge,
Labour Court-cum-Industrial
Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P
_________
x`g foHkkx ¼lh vuqHkkx½
vf/klwpuk
f”keyk&2] 03 tqykbZ] 2014
la[;k% x`g&lh ¼,Q½10&2@91-&&jkT; ljdkj ;g lehphu le>rh gS fd dfri; LFkkuksa esa
vizkf/kd`r O;fDr;ksa ds izos”k dks jksdus ds fy, iwokZo/kkfu;ka cjrh tkuh pkfg, %
vkSj Hkkjr ljdkj ds x`g ea=ky; us ,l0 vks0 568 ¼bZ½ rkjh[k 24&09&2074 }kjk] “kkldh; xqIr
ckr vf/kfu;e] 1923 dh /kkjk 2 dh mi/kkjk ¼8½ ds [k.M ¼x½ vkSj ¼?k½ esa fofufnZ’V ekeys ds lEcU/k esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj ds d`R;ksa dks fgekpy izns”k ljdkj dks lkSaik gS %
vr% fgekpy izns”k dh jkT;iky] “kkldh; xqIr ckr vf/kfu;e] 1923 dh /kkjk 2 dh mi/kkjk ¼8½
ds [k.M ¼?k½ }kjk iznRRk “kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ,rn~ }kjk] mDr vf/kfu;e ds iz;kstuksa gsrq] uhps nh
xbZ vuqlwph ds LrEHk ¼1½ esa fofufn’V LFkku dks] bl vf/klwpuk ds jkti=] fgekpy izns”k esa izdk”ku dh
rkjh[k l]s izfrf’k) LFkku ?kksf’kr djrh gSa %&&
vuqlwph
LFkku dk uke
ifj{ks= vkSj vU; fooj.k
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
400@220 ds0 oh0]
xkao o Mk0 jtsjk]
th vkbZ ,l]
ftyk pEck] fgekpy izns”k
pesjk iksfyax LVs”kuA
esa fLFkrA
vkns”k }kjk]
ih0 fe=k]
eq[; lfpoA
1667
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
[Authoritative English text of this Draft Notification No. Home-C (F) 10-2/91, dated as required
under Article 348(3) of the Constitution if India.]
DEPARTMENT OF HOME (C-SECTION)
NOTIFICATION
Shimla-2, the 3rd July, 2014
No. Home-C(F)10-2/91.—Whereas the State Government considers it expedient that
precautions should be taken to prevent the entry of unauthorized persons into certain places.
And whereas the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, vide S.O. 568 (E) dated
24-09-1974 has entrusted the functions of the Central Government to the Government of Himachal
Pradesh in relation to matter specified in clause (C) and (d) of sub-Section (8) of Section 2 of The
Indian Official Secrets Act, 1923;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-Section (8) of
Section-2 of The Indian Official Secrets Act, 1923, the Governor of Himachal Pradesh hereby
declares that place specified in column (1) of the schedule given below to be a prohibited place for
the purposes of the said Act with effect from the date of publication of this Notification in the
Rajpatra, Himachal Pradesh.
SCHEDULE
Name of Place;
Locality and other descriptions;
(1)
(2)
The 420/220 KV
Situated in VPO Rajera
GIS Chamera Pooling Station.
Distt. Chamba, Himachal Pradesh.
By order,
P. MITRA,
Chief Secretary.
________
ENVIRONMENT SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATION
Shimla-2, the 3rd July,2014
No. STE-A(1)-4/2001-I –L.—In continuation to this Department Notifications of even
number dated 31-12-2012 & 20-05-2013 respectively, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, in exercise
of the powers conferred on her under clause (b) and clause (e) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 is pleased to nominate the following
Members to the H.P. State Pollution Control Board for a period of three year, with immediate effect
in public interest.
1. The Principal Secretary(Env.S&T) to the Govt. of H.P
Member
2. The Principal Secretary(Finance) to the Govt. of H.P.
Member
1668
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 5 tqykbZ] 2014@14 vk"kk<+] 1936
3. The Principal Secretary(MPP & Power) to the Govt. of H.P
Member
4. The Prinicpal Secretary(UD) to the Govt. of H.P.
Member
5. The Prinicipal Secretary(Industries) to the Govt. of HP
Member
6. The Managing Director, HP Road Transport Corporation Shimla
Member
7. The Chief Executive Officer(HIMURJA), Shimla
Member
By order,
Sd/-
Principal Secretary.
fu;U=d] eqnz.k rFkk ys[ku lkexzh] fgekpy izns'k] f'keyk&5 }kjk eqfnzr rFkk izdkf'kr
bysDVªkWfud gLrk{kfjr jkti=] oSclkbV http://rajpatrahimachal.nic.in ij miyC/k gS ,oe~ vkWuykbu lR;kfir fd;k tk ldrk gS