jkti=] fgekpy izns'k

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

f”keyk] ohjokj] 31 tqykbZ] 2014@9 Jko.k] 1936

fgekpy izns'k ljdkj

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-171001

NOTIFICATION

Shimla, the 22nd 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, Ghumarwin, H.P. as Drawing and Disbursing

Officer in respect of the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Bilaspur 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” w.e.f. 24.7.2014 to 8.8.2014 or until

Shri Rajeev Bhardwaj, District and Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. returns from leave.

By order,

Sd/-

Registrar General.

87&jkti=@2014&31&7&2014 ¼2327½

2328

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 31 tqykbZ] 2014@9 Jko.k] 1936

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-171 001

NOTIFICATION

Shimla, the 22nd July, 2014

No. HHC/Admn.6 (24)74-Part.—The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, in exercise of the

powers vested U/S 12(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been pleased to appoint

Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-JMIC, Dalhousie as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate for

Chamba Division, authorizing him to look after the urgent work pertaining to Chamba Civil &

Sessions Division w.e.f. 22.7.2014 to 24.7.2014.

By order,

Sd/-

Registrar General.

_________

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-171001

NOTIFICATION

Shimla the 22nd July, 2014

No. HHC/GAZ/ 14-291/06.—Hon’ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to grant ex-post

facto sanction of 03 days’ commuted leave w.e.f. 24.6.2014 to 26.6.2014 in favour of Shri Subhash

Chander Bhaseen, Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-cum-JMIC (I), Solan, H.P.

Certified that Shri Subhash Chander Bhaseen has joined the same post and at the same

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

Also certified that Shri Subhash Chander Bhaseen would have continued to hold the same

post of Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-cum-JMIC (I), Solan, 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 25th July, 2014

No. HHC/GAZ/ 14-325/2011—Hon’ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to grant ex-post

facto sanction of 05 days’ earned leave w.e.f. 09.06.2014 to 13.06.2014 with permission to prefix

Sunday fell on 08.06.2014 and to suffix Second Saturday & Sunday fell on 14.06.2014 and

15.06.2014 in favour of Sh. Niranjan Singh, Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-cum-JMIC, Indora, District

Kangra, H.P.

2329

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 31 tqykbZ] 2014@9 Jko.k] 1936

Certified that Sh. Niranjan Singh has joined the same post and at the same station from

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

Also certified that Sh. Niranjan Singh would have continued to hold the same post of Civil

Judge (Jr. Division)-cum-JMIC, Indora, District Kangra, H.P., but for his proceeding on leave for

the above period.

By order,

Sd/-

Registrar General.

___________

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA-171001

NOTIFICATION

Shimla, the 25th July, 2014

No. HHC/GAZ/14-133/82-III.—Hon’ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to grant ex-

post facto sanction of 03 days commuted leave w.e.f. 07.07.2014 to 09.07.2014 in favour of Shri

D.K. Sharma, District and Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

Certified that Shri D.K. Sharma had joined the same post and at the same station from

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

Also certified that Shri D.K. Sharma would have continued to hold the same post of District

and Sessions Judge, 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 25th July, 2014

No. HHC/Admn. 3(149)/80.—08 days earned leave on and with effect from 26.07.2014 to

02.08.2014 with permission to suffix Sunday falling on 03.08.2014, is hereby sanctioned, in favour

of Shri Faryad Bhatti, Assistant Registrar of this Registry.

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

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

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

Assistant Registrar but for his proceeding on leave.

By order,

Sd/-

Registrar General.

2330

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 31 tqykbZ] 2014@9 Jko.k] 1936

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA -171001

NOTIFICATION

Shimla, the 17^th July, 2014

No. HHC/Admn. 3(153)/80-II.—50 days leave i.e. 21 days commuted leave on and with

effect from 23.05.2014 to 12.06.2014 & 29 days earned leave w.e.f. 13.06.2014 to 11.07.2014, with

permission to suffix second Saturday & Sunday on 14.06.2014 & 15.06.2014, is hereby sanctioned,

ex-post-facto, in favour of Smt. Neelam Thakur, Assistant Registrar of this registry.

Certified that Smt. Neelam Thakur has joined the same post and at the same station from

where she had proceeded on leave after the expiry of the above leave period.

Certified that Smt. Neelam Thakur would have continued to officiate the same post of

Assistant Registrar but for her proceeding on above leave.

By order,

Sd/-

Registrar General.

__________

[Authoritative English Text of This Department Notification No. TCP-A(3)-4/2014 Dated

17.07.2014 As Required Under Clause (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution of India].

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-2, the 17th July, 2014

No. TCP-A(3)-4/2014.—In supersession of this Department notification No. TCP-A(3)-

2/2004 dated 10.08.2004 and subsequent notification No. TCP-A(3)-9/2005 dated 27.02.2007 and

in exercise of the powers conferred by section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country

Planning Act, 1977 ( Act No. 12 of 1977), the Governor of Himachal Pradesh is pleased to make

the following amendments in the Interim Development Plan for Barotiwala Planning, Area, notified

vide this Department Notification No. AWAS-TCPI-147/92 dated 5.7.1994 and published in the

Himachal Pradesh Rajpatra (extraordinary) dated 27.7.1995, namely:—

Amendment in Chapter 8

In Chapter 8 of the Interim Development Plan for Barotiwala Planning Area for regulation

8.4.3, the following shall be substituted, namely:—

“8.4.3 Industrial Use:

For Industrial use or activities, following regulations shall be applicable:—

(1) Minimum plot area shall be:-

(a) for small scale industry 250 M² to 500 M²;

(b) for services/light scale industry 501 M² to 1000 M²;

(d) for large and heavy scale industry above 5000 M².

2331

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 31 tqykbZ] 2014@9 Jko.k] 1936

Provided that.—

(i) The plot area as mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) above shall not be applicable

in the cases where the sub-division of land has taken place effect before the

commencement of the Interim Development Plan for Barotiwala Planning

Area,

(ii) the plot area as mentioned under clauses (a) to (d) above shall not be

applicable for the individual plots, if any, created/allotted by the Himachal

Pradesh Industries Department and Himachal Pradesh State Industrial

Development Corporation (HPSIDC) or any other Authority prior to coming

into force of the Interim Development Plan for Barotiwala Planning Area,

(iii) the layout and design of industrial area, if any, shall be as per requirement of

the Industry and shall be got approved from the Director.

(2) Height of floor or storey:

The minimum height of floor or storey height of industrial building shall be 3.00

Metres and sloping roof height shall be in accordance with volume of the structure. In

case of roof trusses, height of building may be adjusted or relaxed accordingly.

(3) The plot area, minimum set-backs, maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and maximum

height of building shall be governed by following table:—

Sr.

No.

Type of

Industry

Plot area in

M²

Minimum Set Back in Metres

Max.

FAR

Max.

Height of

Building.

(in Metres)

Front

Left

Right

Rear

Small Scale

Industries

250 to 500

3.00

2.00

1.75

15.00

Services/

Light scale

Industries

501 to 1000

5.00

2.00

3.00

1.50

15.00

Medium

Scale

Industries

1001 to 5000

10.00

5.00

1.25

20.00

Large

and

Heavy Scale

Industries

Above 5000

15.00

7.50

1.00

20.00

Note.—(i) Minimum width of path/road abutting one side of plot shall be 5.00 Metres.

(ii) Service area required for pharmaceutical units or such type of Industries under

requirement of Goods Manufacturing Practice (G.M.P) shall not be included for

calculation of FAR, provided it is only used for utilities and services but not in any

case for production.

(iii) For ancillary uses like security post/room shall be allowed in set-back area i.e. one wall

shared with the boundary wall and shall be counted in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR).

2332

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 31 tqykbZ] 2014@9 Jko.k] 1936

(4) Construction of Cellar

(a) Construction of cellar shall not be counted as a storey and should to be

constructed within the prescribed set backs and prescribed building lines and

subject to maximum coverage on floor i.e. entrance floor and may be put for

following uses:-

(i) storage of household or other goods of ordinarily combustible material;

(ii) strong rooms, bank cellars etc;

(iii) air conditioning equipment and other machines used for services and utilities

of the building; and

(iv) parking spaces.

(b) The cellar shall have following requirements:-

(i) all the walls shall be kept dead and below the natural ground level except the

portion kept for ventilation purpose;

(ii) every cellar shall be, in every part, at least 2.40 Metres in height from the

floor to the underside of the roof slab or ceiling;

(iii) adequate ventilation shall be provided for the cellar and any deficiency in

ventilation requirements may be met by providing mechanical ventilation in

the form of blowers, exhaust fans and air conditioning system etc;

(iv) the minimum height of the ceiling of any cellar shall be 0.90 Metre and the

maximum 1.20 Metre above the average surrounding ground level.

(v) adequate arrangements shall be made such that surface drainage does not

enter the cellar;

(vi) the walls and floors of the cellar shall be watertight and be so designed that

the effects of the surrounding soil and moisture, if any, are taken into

account in design and adequate damp proofing treatment is given;

(vii) the access to the cellar shall be separate from the main and alternative

staircase providing access and exit from higher floor and where the staircase

is continuous in the case of buildings served by more than one staircase, the

same shall be enclosed type, serving as a fire separation from the cellar floor

and higher floors. Open ramps shall be permitted, if they are constructed

within the building line subject to the provision of clause (v) above;

(viii) in case partition in the cellars is allowed by the Authority, no compartment

shall be less than 50.00 M² in area and each compartment shall have proper

ventilation provision and the cellar partition shall however, conform to the

norms laid down by the Fire Services; and

(ix) in no circumstances, construction of Toilet, Bath, Kitchen etc. shall be

allowed in the cellar”.

By order,

Sd/-

Secretary (TCP).

2333

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 31 tqykbZ] 2014@9 Jko.k] 1936

lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx

[k&vuqHkkx

vf/klwpuk

f'keyk&2] 25] tqykbZ] 2014

la[;k% th,Mh&ch&¼,½ 1&2@2013 ¼f'keyk½-&&fgekpy izns'k dh jkT;iky dh ;g jk; gS fd

orZeku mi&rglhy dqioh] ftyk f'keyk dk ntkZ c<+kdj rglhy dk dj fn;k tk,] ftldk eq[;ky;

dqioh] ftyk f'keyk] fgekpy izns'k esa gksxk] rkfd utnhd ds xkaoksa ds lEc) yksxksa dks csgrj lsok,a

miyC/k djokbZ tk ldsa vkSj jktLo ls lEcfU/kr dk;Z esa mudks gksus okyh vlqfo/kk ls fuokfjr fd;k tk

lds rFkk csgrj iz'kklfud fu;U=.k gks lds A

vr% fgekpy izns'k dh jkT;iky] fgekpy izns'k Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e] 1954 ¼1954 dk vf/kfu;e

la[;kad 6½ dh /kkjk 6 vkSj jftLVªhdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1908 ¼1908 dk vf/kfu;e la[;kad 16½ dh /kkjk 5

}kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] fuEufyf[kr iVokj o`Ÿkksa ls lekfo"V mi&rglhy dqioh dk ntkZ

c<+kdj rglhy dk djrh gSa %&

rglhy

mi&e.My

ftyk

eq[;ky;

lfEefyr iVokj o`Ùk

dqioh

pkSiky

f'keyk

dqioh

1- dqioh

2- pjkSyh

3- dqyx

4- xksaFk

5- /kkjpkUnuk

6- eykV

7- Hkyw

vkns'k }kjk]

ih0 fe=k]

Ekq[; lfpoA

&&&&&&&

[Authoritative English text of the Himachal Pradesh Government Notification NO. GAD-B-

(A)-1-2/2013 Dated 25-7-2014 as required under clause(3) of Article 348 of the Constitution of

India].

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT

B-Section

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-2, the 25th July, 2014

No. GAD-B-(A)-1-2/2013 (Shimla).—Whereas, the Governor of Himachal Pradesh is of

the opinion that present Sub-Tehsil Kupvi District Shimla may be upgraded to that of Tehsil with

its Headquarter at Kupvi, District Shimla H.P., to provide better services to the concerned people of

nearby villages and to avoid inconvenience faced by them pertaining to revenue work and to have

better administrative control.

2334

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 31 tqykbZ] 2014@9 Jko.k] 1936

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 6 of the Himachal Pradesh

Land Revenue Act, 1954 (Act No. 6 of 1954) and section 5 of the Registration Act, 1908 (Act No.

16 of 1908) the Governor of Himachal Pradesh is pleased to upgrade the Sub-Tehsil Kupvi to that

of Tehsil consisting of Patwar Circles given below :—

Tehsil

Sub-Division

District

Headquarter

Patwar Circles Included

Kupvi

Chopal

Shimla

Kupvi

1. Kupvi

2. Chroali

3. Kulag

4. Gonth

5. Dharchandna

6. Malat

7. Bhaloo

By order,

P. MITRA,

Chief Secretary.

_________

lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx

[k&vuqHkkx

vf/klwpuk

f'keyk&2] 25 tqykbZ] 2014

Lak[;k% th,Mh&ch&¼,½ 1&1@2013&1¼fljekSj½-&&fgekpy izns'k dh jkT;iky dh jk; gS fd ,slk

djuk vko';d gS fd fuEufyf[kr LrEHk la[;k 6 esa n'kkZ, x, iVokj o`Ùkksa ls xfBr] ftyk fljekSj esa

,d ubZ mi&rglhy gfjiqj/kkj l`ftr dh tk,] rkfd utnhd ds xkaoksa ds lEc) yksxksa dks csgrj lsok,a

miyC/k djokbZ tk lds vkSj ftlls mudks gksus okyh vlqfo/kk ls fuokfjr fd;k tk lds rFkk csgrj

iz'kklfud fu;U=.k gks ldsA

vr% fgekpy izns'k dh jkT;iky] fgekpy izns'k Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e] 1954 ¼1954 dk vf/kfu;e

la[;kad 6½ dh /kkjk 6 vkSj jftLVªhdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1908 ¼1908 dk vf/kfu;e la[;kad 16½ dh /kkjk 5

}kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ftyk fljekSj] fgekpy izns'k esa ,d ubZ mi&rglhy gfjiqj/kkj

dk l`tu djrh gSa %&

mi&rglhy mi&e.My rglhy ftyk

eq[;ky; lfEefyr iVokj o`Ùk rglhy@mi

dk uke dk uke dk uke

rglhy dk

uke ftlls

vioftZr fd,

gfjiqj/kkj

laxM+kg

laxM+kg fljekSj gfjiqj/kkj 1- fVdjh Mlkduk

laxM+kg

2- c<+kSy

3- HkykM

4- HkokbZ

5- pk<+uk ukSgjk

vkns'k }kjk]

ih0 fe=k]

Ekq[; lfpoA

2335

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 31 tqykbZ] 2014@9 Jko.k] 1936

[Authoritative English text of the Himachal Pradesh Government Notification NO. GAD-B-

(A)-1-1/2013-1(Sirmour) Dated 25-7-2014 as required under clause(3) of Article 348 of the

Constitution of India].

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT

B-Section

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-2, the 25th July, 2014

No. GAD-B-(A)-1-1/2013-1(Sirmour).—Whereas, the Governor of Himachal Pradesh is of

the opinion that it is necessary to do so that a new Sub-Tehsil Haripurdhar in District Sirmour may

be created consisting of the Patwar Circles shown in column 6, below to provide better services to

the concerned people of nearby villages and to avoid inconvenience faced by them and to have the

better administrative control.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 6 of the Himachal Pradesh

Land Revenue Act, 1954 (Act 6 of 1954) and Section 5 of the Registration Act, 1908 (Act No. 16

of 1908), the Governor of Himachal Pradesh is pleased to create a new Sub-Tehsil at Haripurdhar

in District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh:-

Name of

Name

District

Head

Patwar Circles

Name of

the Sub-

of Sub

quarter

Included

Tehsil/Sub-

Tehsil

Division

Tehsil

Tehsil from

where

excluded

Haripurdhar Sangrah

Sangrah Sirmour Haripurdhar 1.Tikari Dasakna

Sangrah

2. Badhol

3. Bhalad

4. Bhavai

5. Charhna

Nohra

By order,

P.MITRA,

Chief Secretary.

_________

lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx

vuqHkkx&[k

vf/klwpuk

f'keyk&2] 25 tqykbZ] 2014

la[;k% th,Mh&ch&¼,½ 1&2@2013 ¼f'keyk½-&&fgekpy izns'k dh jkT;iky dh jk; gS fd ,slk

djuk vko';d gS fd fuEufyf[kr LrEHk la[;k 6 esa n'kkZ, x, iVokj o`Ùkksa ls xfBr] ftyk f'keyk esa ,d

ubZ mi&rglhy nsgk l`ftr dh tk,] rkfd utnhd ds xkaoksa ds lEc) yksxksa dks csgrj lsok,a miyC/k

djokbZ tk lds vkSj ftlls mudks gksus okyh vlqfo/kk ls fuokfjr fd;k tk lds rFkk csgrj iz'kklfud

fu;U=.k gks ldsA

2336

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 31 tqykbZ] 2014@9 Jko.k] 1936

vr% fgekpy izns'k dh jkT;iky] fgekpy izns'k Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e] 1954 ¼1954 dk vf/kfu;e

la[;kad 6½ dh /kkjk 6 vkSj jftLVªhdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1908 ¼1908 dk vf/kfu;e la[;kad 16½ dh /kkjk 5

}kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ftyk f'keyk] fgekpy izns'k esa ,d ubZ mi&rglhy nsgk dk

l`tu djrh gSa %&

mi&rglhy mi&e.My

rglhy ftyk

eq[;ky;

lfEefyr

rglhy dk uke

dk uke

iVokj o`Ùk

ftlls vioftZr

fd, x,

nsgk

fB;ksx

f'keyk nsgk

1- cklk/kkj

fB;ksx

2- dqBkj

3- ?kksM+uk ¼nsgk½

4- ckxM+h

5- tukgu

6- usjh

7- cy/kkj

8- ?kq.M

9- cXkS.k

vkns'k }kjk]

ih0 fe=k]

Ekq[; lfpoA

&&&&&&&

[Authoritative English text of the Himachal Pradesh Government Notification NO. GAD-B-

(A)-1-2/2013 (Shimla) Dated 25th July,2014 as required under clause(3) of Article 348 of the

Constitution of India].

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT

Section-B

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-2, the 25th July, 2014

No. GAD-B-(A)-1-2/2013(Shimla).—Whereas, the Governor of Himachal Pradesh is of the

opinion that it is necessary to do so that a new Sub-Tehsil Deha in District Shimla may be created

consisting of the Patwar Circles shown in column 6, below to provide better services to the

concerned people of nearby villages and to avoid inconvenience faced by them and to have the

better administrative control.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 6 of the Himachal Pradesh

Land Revenue Act, 1954 (Act 6 of 1954) and Section 5 of the Registration Act, 1908 (Act No. 16

2337

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 31 tqykbZ] 2014@9 Jko.k] 1936

of 1908), the Governor of Himachal Pradesh is pleased to create a new Sub- Tehsil at Deha in

District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh:—

Name Name

Name of

District

Headquarter

Patwar Circles

Name of

of the of Sub

Tehsil

Included

Tehsil from

Sub-

Division

where

Tehsil

excluded

Deha

Theog

Shimla

Deha

1. Basadhar

Theog

2. Kuthar

3. Ghodna(Deha)

4. Bagarhi

5. Janahan

6. Neri

7. Baladhar

8. Ghund

9. Bagain

By order,

P. MITRA,

Chief Secretary.

_________

LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-2, the 23^rd July, 2014

No. Sharm (A) 7-1/2005-IV (Award).—In exercise of the powers vested under section

17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, the Governor Himachal Pradesh is pleased to order the

publication of awards of the following cases announced by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court

Shimla on the website of the Department of Labour & Employment, Government of Himachal

Pradesh.

Sr.

No.

Case No.

Title of the Case

Date of

Award

33/2014

S/Shri Krishan Thakur V/s M/s Protech Engg. Industrial Ltd.

12-5-2014

05/14

Sh. Sohan Lal V/s M/s Marico Ltd. P/Sahib.

27-05-2014

06/14

Smt Shabnam V/S -do-

27-05-2014

150/2014

Sh. Ishwar Dutt V/S M.D. M/s Hemma Herbs Ltd.

26-05-2014

66/2010

Sh. Muni Lal V/s M/s Sidhartha Super Spinning Mills.

29-05-2014

48/2008

President/Gen Secty, Employees Union V/s M.D. H.P. GIC Shimla.

26-05-2014

22/2014

Sh. Nasib Singh V/s Wipro Elect. Pvt.Ltd.

10-6-2014

116/2009

Sh. Ashok Kumar V/s M/s Janta Watch & Radio Services Shimla.

11-6-2014

2338

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 31 tqykbZ] 2014@9 Jko.k] 1936

03/2014

Sh. Raj Kumar V/s Ameya Plastic P/Sahib.

12-6-2014

104/2010

Sh. Nek Chand V/s DFO Shimla & Ors.

11-6-2014

105/2010

Sh. Om Parkash V/s DFO Shimla & Ors.

11-6-2014

86/2010

Sh. Raghunandan V/s Sidhartha Super Spining,Mills.

30-06-2014

56/2010

Sh. Ishwer Dass V/s Health.

27-06-2014

By order,

Sd/-

(R. D. DHIMAN),

Pr.Secretary ( Labour & Employment).

__________

Ref.33/2014

Sh Krishan Thakur V/s M/s Protech Engg. Industries pvt.ltd

12.5.2014:-

Present:-

None for petitioner

Shri Mukesh Chand Sharma, HR Manager and Daljeet Singh, Accountant, for

respondent.

Despite the fact that petitioner(krishan Thakur) has been duly served,in accordance with

law, but he has chosen not to appear before this Court. Shri Mukesh Chand Sharma , HR Manager

and Daljeet Singh, Accountant, who have appeared before this Court, on behalf of the respondent ,

have stated that a settlement/compromise has been effected between the parties. In support of their

such contention, they have also shown to this Court the settlement, allegedly, so arrived at between

the parties.

Since, the petitioner, despite service, has not put his presence before this Court, this Court

has been left with no other alternative but to accept the version made by Shri Mukesh Chand

Sharma , HR Manager and Daljeet Singh, Accountant, before this Court regarding a compromise /

settlement already having taken place between the parties. Consequently, I proceed to record the

composite statement of Shri Mukesh Chand Sharma, HR Manager and Daljeet Singh, Accountant

which is recorded accordingly.

On having considered the composite statement made by Sh .Mukesh Chand Sharma , HR

Manager and Daljeet Singh, Accountant, I am satisfied that a lawful compromise/ settlement has

already been effected between the parties, out of Court. In these circumstances, the reference which

has been made to this Court and is as under:—

Whether termination of service of Shri Krishan Thakur s/o Shri Ramesh Chand

Thakur R/o Village Buduha, P.O.Sohari, Teh Bangana, Distt Una, HP w.e.f 28.6.2013 by the

employer/ Managing Director M/s Protech engineering Industrial Pvt.Ltd , Plot No.124/135,

Katha Baddi, Distt Solan, HP without complying with the provisions of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 id legal and justified ? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past

service benefits and compensation the above workers is entitled to from the above employer?

2339

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 31 tqykbZ] 2014@9 Jko.k] 1936

Is answered accordingly in terms of settlement /compromise Ex.RB(12 pages). Which shall

form part and parcel of this order/award. Let a copy of this award/order be sent to the appropriate

government for publication in the official gazette. File , after completion, be consigned to records.

Announced:

12.5.2014

Sd/-

Presiding Judge

Labour Court, Shimla.

_________

Ref. 05 of 2014

Sh Sohan Lal V/s M/s Marico Ltd P/Sahib

27.5.2014:-

Present:-

None for the petitioner.

Sh. Tarsem Singh, HR Executive , for respondent.

An authorized letter has been filed by Shri Tarsem Singh on behalf of respondent, which

has been taken on record. It has been stated, at bar, by Shri Tarsem Singh that already an amicable

settlement has been effected between the parties. In support of his such contention , he has

produced before this Court compromise memorandum/ settlement. The appointment letter, which

has been issued to the petitioner dated 2.11.2013, has also been produced. Besides, reply to the

reference , which has been made to this Court, also filed.

On hearing said Tarsem Singh, it appears to me that a compromise/ settlement has already

been effected between the parties, out of Court. Thus, I proceed to record his statement which is

recorded accordingly.

In view of the statement made by Shri Tarsem Singh, HR Exective for the respondent. I am

satisfied that a lawful settlement/compromise has already beeneffected between the parties. In these

circumstances. I do not find it expedient to issue notice to the petitioner(Sohan Lal).

Consequently, for the compromise/ settlement already having taken place between the

parties, out of Court, the reference. As under

Whether the termination of the services of Shri Sohan Lal s/o Shri Swroop R/o Village

herewala, P.O.Sainwala, Teh Paonta Sahib, Distt Sirmour, HP w.e.f 18.10.2012 by the

employer M/s Ameya Plastics, Contractor of M/s Marico Ltd , Village Surajpur,

P.O.Puruwala, Teh Paonta sahib Distt Sormour, HP 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 workers is entitled to from the

above employer?

Which has been made to this Court by the appropriate government, stands answered to have

been compromised between parties. Let a copy of this award/ order be sent to the appropriate

government for publication in the official gazette. File, after completion , be consigned to records.

Announced:-

27.5.2014

Sd/-

Presiding Judge

Labour Court, Shimla.

2340

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 31 tqykbZ] 2014@9 Jko.k] 1936

Ref. 06 of 2014

Smt. Shabnam Lal V/s M/s Marico Ltd P/Sahib

27.5.2014:-

Present:-

None for the petitioner.

Sh Tarsem Singh, HR Executive , for respondent.

An authorized letter has been filed by Shri Tarsem Singh on behalf of respondent, which

has been taken on record. It has been stated, at bar, by Shri Tarsem Singh that already an amicable

settlement has been effected between the parties. In support of his such contention , he has

produced before this Court compromise memorandum/ settlement. The appointment letter, which

has been issued to the petitioner dated 2.11.2013, has also been produced. Besides, reply to the

reference , which has been made to this Court, also filed.

On hearing said Tarsem Singh, it appears to me that a compromise/settlement has already

been effected between the parties, out of Court. Thus, I proceed to record his statement which is

recorded accordingly.

In view of the statement made by Shri Tarsem Singh, HR Exective for the respondent. I am

satisfied that a lawful settlement/compromise has already beeneffected between the parties. In these

circumstances. I do not find it expedient to issue notice to the petitioner(Shabnam)

Consequently, for the compromise/ settlement already having taken place between the

parties, out of Court, the reference. As under

Whether the termination of the services of Shri Sohan Lal s/o Shri Swroop R/o Village

herewala, P.O.Sainwala, Teh Paonta Sahib, Distt Sirmour, HP w.e.f 18.10.2012 by the

employer M/s Ameya Plastics, Contractor of M/s Marico Ltd, Village Surajpur,

P.O.Puruwala, Teh Paonta sahib Distt Sormour, HP 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 workers is entitled to from the

above employer?

Which has been made to this Court by the appropriate government, stands answered to have

been compromised between parties. Let a copy of this award/ order be sent to the appropriate

government for publication in the official gazette. File, after completion , be consigned to records.

Announced:-

27.5.2014

Sd/-

Presiding Judge

Labour Court, Shimla.

_________

IN THE COURT OF A.S JASWAL, PRESIDING JUDGE, HP INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA

Ref no. 150 of 2007

Instituted on 14.12.2008.

Decided on 26.5.2014.

Ishwar Dutt Sharma S/o Shri Chand Lal Sharma R/o Village Bardanda, P.O Dharampur,

Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, HP.

..Petitioner.

2341

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 31 tqykbZ] 2014@9 Jko.k] 1936

VS.

The Managing Director, M/s Hema Herbs, Pvt., Ltd., Pot No. 39, Industrial Area

Barotiwala, District Solan. HP.

..Respondent.

Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For petitioner: Ms. Madhu Sharma, Advocate.

For respondent: Shri Rajeev Sharma, Advocate.

AWARD

The reference for adjudication, is as under:-

"Whether the termination of Shri Ishwar Dutt Sharma S/o Shri Chand lal Sharma

workman by the Management of M/s Hema Herbs (P) Ltd., Plot No. 30, Industrial

Area, Barotiwala, District Solan, HP without serving him notice of absenteeism is legal

and justified? If not, what relief of seniority, back wages and amount of compensation

the concerned aggrieved workman is entitled to?”

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as manufacturing chemist,

on permanent basis, on 13.8.2005, with the respondent which is engaged in the manufacturing of a

special type of oil namely Navratan oil. In the last week of Feb., 2006, when the production

manager Mr. Praveen Chaudhory was on leave and in his place Mr. Atul Verma, Quality Manager

was assigned to supervise the production work, he (Atul Verma) without taking any care, as

required to enter the manufacturing room, entered the same and ordered the petitioner to finish the

whole work within eight hours instead of scheduled twelve hours. He further threatened him

(petitioner) that if the work was not finished, as directed, strict action was to be taken against him.

At that time, he had also used abusive language. It is further stated that on the same day, the

petitioner who had been asked to give explanation regarding his alleged misbehavior and

misconduct. Later on, it transpired that Mr. Atul Verma had made a complaint to the higher

officials against the petitioner and without any delay, action was taken, against him, without

verifying the authenticity of the alleged misbehavior. In fact, as per the standards prescribed, the

entire process, to manufacture the oil, was to take twelve hours. Thus, the work could not have

been completed within lesser time as directed by Mr. Atul Verma. Hence, the complaint which had

been made against the petitioner by said Atul Verma was false and baseless. After the alleged

occurrence, the behavior of Atul Verma against the petitioner had became cold from last week of

Feb. onwards and he started quarreling with him (petitioner) without any cause. For this reason, he

(petitioner) had been falsely implicated and subsequently terminated and that too without having

been issued any show cause notice, chargesheet and conducting domestic enquiry. Apart from this,

neither principles of natural justice had been followed nor the prescribed procedure, as per the

standing orders. It is further averred that before the Conciliation Officer, both the parties had

arrived at a settlement, as per which, the respondent agreed to reinstate him but despite that he was

not taken back in service. In this way, his services were terminated without holding any domestic

enquiry and in contravention of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter

referred as Act), especially section 25-F. It is further maintained that he (petitioner) had not

abandoned his job. Against this back-drop, a prayer has been made to reinstate him with back-

wages and other consequential benefits.

3. The petition has been contested on having raised various preliminary objections

including maintainability as the petitioner had not completed 240 working days with the respondent

2342

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 31 tqykbZ] 2014@9 Jko.k] 1936

during the period of his employment. On merits, it has been denied that the appointment of the

petitioner was on permanent basis. It is further asserted that the petitioner had misbehaved with Mr.

Atul Sharma, during duty hours and in this regard, a written complaint had been made against him.

The show cause notice, on the basis of that complaint, had been issued to the petitioner which was

refused to be accepted by him. When the petitioner was counseled by Personnel Manager, he again

refused to receive a letter, which was issued to him. Such Drama kept on going for few days. On

4.3.2006, when the petitioner was again called in the office of Personnel Manager and counseled,

he desired to meet the Factory Manager. In the afternoon, he (petitioner) left the factory after

dropping ½ day’s leave without getting it sanctioned and even misbehaved with security officers,

on main gate, for not having a gate pass. Thereafter, he never reported for regular duty during duty

hours, though on two occasions, he had come to the factory to discuss the matter. Further, despite

written letter, he failed to report on duty along-with the reply of the show cause letters. It is further

averred that the petitioner had abandoned his job and chosen to remain away from the factory. He

(petitioner) had also failed to file, any reply, to the satisfaction of the respondent. In this way, he

had got himself involved in misconduct and did not opt to file reply to the show cause notice,

issued to him, in this regard. It is denied that his services had been terminated by the respondent.

Other allegations also denied.

4. By filing rejoinder, the petitioner reaffirmed his own allegations by denying those of

the respondent.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck on 22.4.2010.

Whether the services of the petitioner have been terminated illegally and in an unjustified

manner as alleged?

OPP…….

If issue no.1 is proved, in affirmative, to what service benefits, the petitioner is entitled to?

OPP……..

Whether this petition is not maintainable?

OPR………

Relief.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record

of the case carefully.

7. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing issues for determination,

my findings on the aforesaid issues are as under.

Issue no.1

Accordingly in Yes.

Issue no. 2

Entitled to reinstatement in service forth-with with seniority and continuity but

without back wages.

Issue no. 3

No.

Relief.

Reference answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent, per

operative part of award.

2343

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 31 tqykbZ] 2014@9 Jko.k] 1936

Reasons for findings

Issue no.1.

8. The contention of the petitioner is that when he had some dispute with Mr. Atul

Verma, Quality Manager, in the last week of Feb., 2006, a complaint was made against him, in

writing, for alleged misbehavior and misconduct. Without verifying the authenticity of the same,

his services were terminated and that too without any show cause notice and holding domestic

enquiry. On the other hand, the defence plea is that the petitioner had abandoned the job and he did

not accept the letters, which had been issued to him, calling for his explanation. The plea of the

respondent is further to this effect that the petitioner had not been appointed on permanent basis

and further that during the period, he had remained in employment, he did not complete 240 days.

9. While appearing in the witness box as PW-1, the petitioner has supported the facts as

made in the petition, on all material particulars including that in the month of Feb., 2006, Mr. Atul

Verma, Quality Manager who was performing the duties of Production Manager, had come to the

manufacturing unit and told him to finish the work in eight hours instead of twelve hours. Since, he

had told that the work could not have been completed before twelve hours, as per prescribed

schedule, said Atul Verma had started abusing him. In this regard, he had made a complaint to

Manager, HR in the presence of Mr. Deepak Mahodyay, Chemist, which had been torn by him

(Manager). Thereafter, he had been attending to his duties. When, he was noticed by Mr. Atul

Verma that he was still attending his duties, he against abused him and thereafter, his entry, inside

the factory gate, was prohibited. Despite that, he kept on coming for 2/3 days but the management

of the respondent used to make him to sit out side the factory. Neither, he had been issued any

show cause notice nor chargesheet. During conciliation, the management had agreed to reinstate

him without wages which he refused. Ex. PA, is his appointment letter and Ex. PB, pay slip. In the

cross-examination, he denied to have an altercation, with Mr. Atul Verma on 25.2.2006 at about

1.30 PM. He further denied to have refused to take explanation letter on 25.7.2006 from Shri

Ramesh Sharma, HR Manager and another explanation letter dated 1.3.2006. He admitted to have

written letter Ex. RP-1. On 4.3.2006, he had gone out of the factory without gate pass. Further

explained that since it was Sunday, no gate pass was required. He is un-employed. Regarding his

having applied in other Pharma Companies, situated in HP, he has not filed any document. Without

back-wages, he is not ready to work with the respondent.

10. Shri Deepak Mahodyay, PW-2, has supported the version of the petitioner (PW-1) that

in the last week of Feb., 2006, Shri Atul Verma, who was performing the duties of Production

Manager, had come to the manufacturing unit and asked the petitioner to finish the manufacturing

work within eight hours instead of twelve hours. When the petitioner expressed his inability to do

so, Mr. Atul Verma had started abusing him. In his presence, the petitioner had made a written

complaint to the Manager, HR regarding this incident. In the cross-examination, he stated to have

left the job of respondent’s company since September, 2006. He admitted that it is for the quality

manager to see as to what type of quality instructions are to be given to the Chemists which they

are required to follow.

11. Shri Rajinder Kumar (PW-3), from the summoned record, stated that the respondent

company was ready to reinstate the petitioner but refused to pay back wages. Report of the Labour-

cum-Conciliation Officer is Ex. PW-3/A.

12. Shri Pradeep Verma (PW-4), stated from the summoned record that Ex. PW-4/A to Ex.

PW-4/C, are the abstracts of attendance register, payment of salary record and adult workers

the cross-examination, he stated that the mandays of the petitioner, being prepared by him, are Ex.

RP-2. As per the record, the petitioner had worked only for 147 ½ days.

2344

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 31 tqykbZ] 2014@9 Jko.k] 1936

13. Shri Avneesh Kumar Shukla (RW-1), in his affidavit Ex. RW-1/A, has stated that as

per the record, the petitioner had been appointed on 3.8.2005 and that in the month of March, 2006,

he stopped coming to the factory in order to do his job. As per record, the petitioner had worked for

147 ½ days. Since, the petitioner had misbehaved with Mr. Atul Verma, the Personnel Department

of the factory had issued a show cause notice to him which he had refused to accept. On, 4.3.2006,

the petitioner had left, by applying for ½ day’s leave without getting the same sanctioned. The

version of the petitioner is in-correct that his services had been terminated. In the corss-

examination, he stated to have joined the company in the year, 2009. No domestic enquiry had been

got conducted against the petitioner.

14. RW-2, Shri Gaurav, Manager, HR, M/s Mapex Remedies Pvt. Ltd. Baddi, has stated

from the summoned record that Ishwar Dutt S/o Shri Chand Lal had joined their company on

20.9.2006, as per appointment letter Ex. RW-2/A. Thereafter, on 27.11.2009, he left the job and

against joined on 17.8.2010, as per appointment letter Ex. RW-2/B. Now, he has been promoted as

Production Head and in this regard letter is Ex. RW-2/C. His monthly salary is Rs. 28,330/-. In the

crossexamination, he stated that on 20.4.2011 he had joined the factory. He denied that no

promotion letter had been issued to Ishwar Dutt.

15. Ex. PW4/A, is the abstract of attendance register from the month of October, 2005 to

march, 2006. The perusal of this register shows that petitioner (Ishwar Dutt) was marked as present

till 4.3.2006. Thereafter, as per this document, he has been shown to be marked absent till

31.3.2006. The respondent has led evidence to this effect that since, the petitioner had misbehaved

with Mr. Atul Verma, for this reason, he had been issued show cause notice which he (petitioner)

did not accept. I may mention that, on the record, the respondent has failed to prove that the

petitioner had refused to accept the show cause notice which had been issued to him. Even if, he

had refused to accept the show cause notice, still as per the principle of natural justice, it was

required of the respondent company to have got conducted a domestic enquiry against him for the

alleged misconduct conducted by him against Mr. Atul Verma. Although, the alleged occurrence

had taken place with Mr. Atul Verma in the last week of Feb., 2006 but from the statement of RW-

1 Shri Avneesh Kumar Shukla, it is revealed that on 4.3.2006, the petitioner was present in the

factory. His such evidence is further supported from the abstract of attendance register Ex. PW-

4/A. If the petitioner had been attending his work, it cannot be believed that he could not have been

served with show cause notice. In my considered view, an enquiry was required to be got

conducted, for the alleged misconduct by petitioner, if any action had been proposed to be taken

against him.

16. The respondent had also taken a plea that the petitioner had abandoned his job. It is

true that from the abstract of attendance register Ex. PW-4/A, it is revealed that the petitioner had

been marked absent from 6th March, 2006 to 31.3.2006 but on that score, the contention of the

respondent is not proved that he had abandoned the job. If, the petitioner had stopped coming to

attend to his duties, it was required of the respondent to have issued him notice calling upon him to

attend the duties failing which his services were to be terminated. It is not the case of the

respondent that any such notice, calling upon the petitioner to have joined his duties, had been

issued. If, the respondent company had issued such notice to the petitioner and despite that he had

failed to join his duties, in that event, the contention of the respondent that the petitioner had

abandoned his job could said to have been proved. It has been stated by the petitioner (PW-1) that

his entry inside the factory gate had been prohibited and further that the management of the

respondent company had made him to sit out side the factory gate for 2/3 days. His such version

goes to show that although, he had been coming to attend to his work but his entry was not allowed.

In these circumstances, the alleged absenteeism of the petitioner cannot be said to be

willful/volunteer requiring his alleged termination from service. I disagree with the Ld. Counsel for

the respondent that since, the petitioner had not been in continuous service for 240 days, preceding

2345

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 31 tqykbZ] 2014@9 Jko.k] 1936

his alleged termination/abandonment of job, the provisions of the Act are not applicable. As already

stated above, it was for the respondent to have issued a notice to the petitioner to join his job/duties,

even if, he had been absenting himself from the duties.

17. Consequently, for what has been stated and observed above, I hold that the petitioner

had not abandoned his job and that w.e.f. 4.3.2006, his alleged termination cannot be said to be

legal and justified. Thus, my answer to this issue is in “yes” accordingly.

Issue no. 2

18. It has been stated by the petitioner (PW-1) that he is un-employed. However, when

evidence of Shri Gaurav (RW-2), is considered, it is revealed that Ishwar Dutt (petitioner) had

joined M/s Mapex Remedies Pvt. Ltd, Baddi on 20.9.2006, as per appointment letter Ex. RW-2/A

and that till 27.11.2009, he remained in job. Again, on 17.8.2010, he joined the said factory as per

appointment letter Ex. RW-2/B, where he is still working, on monthly salary of Rs. 28,330/-. As

from the evidence, on record, it is proved that the petitioner is not un-employed, I hold that

he is not entitled to back-wages. Since, on the record, it has been proved that his services had

stood terminated illegally, he is entitled to be reinstated, in service, with seniority and continuity.

Thus, my answer to this issue is partly in “yes”.

Issue no. 3

19. Although, an objection has been taken by the respondent that this petition is not

maintainable but it is to be mentioned that, a reference which is made to a Labour Court, by an

appropriate government, needs to be answered. Consequent upon the reference, which had been

made to this Court by the appropriate government, the petitioner had filed statement of claim.

Since, on record, it is proved that before terminating the services of the petitioner, no domestic

enquiry had been got conducted and further that the respondent failed to prove that he (petitioner)

abandoned his job, there is no such material, on record, which could go to show that this petition is

not legally maintainable. I may mention that on the plea, as has been taken by the respondent, that

the petitioner had not completed 240 days in a calendar year preceding his termination, this petition

cannot be said to be not maintainable because in the instant case, it is not the case of the respondent

that the services of the petitioner had not been terminated by it. On the contrary, its plea is that he

had abandoned the job which has not been proved on record. Thus, by holding this petition to be

maintainable, my answer to this issue is in “No”.

Relief

As a sequel to my findings on the aforesaid issues, the claim of the petitioner is partly

allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be reinstated in service forth-with with seniority and

continuity but without back wages. Consequently, the reference stands answered in favour of

petitioner and against the respondents. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate

government for publication in official gazette. File, after completion be consigned to records.

Announced in the open court today on this 26th Day of May, 2014.

(A.S JASWAL),

Presiding Judge,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Shimla.

2346

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 31 tqykbZ] 2014@9 Jko.k] 1936

Ref. 66 of 2010

Sh. Muni Lal v/s M/s Sidhartha Super Spinning mills Ltd. Nalaghar

29.5.2014

Present:

Sh. R P Kaundel, Adv. for the petitioner who is not present .

Sh. Rajeev Sharma for the respondent.

Sh. Ram Avtar Sharma Sr. Dy. Personal Manager also present.

At this stage, Sh. Rajeev Sharma Adv. for the respondent has stated that a compromise has

already been effected between the parties. His such version has also been endorsed by Sh. Ram

Avtar Sharma, Sr. Dy. Personal Manager, Sh. R P Kaundel Adv. for the petitioner has stated that

his client has not come. He further clarified that in regard of the alleged compromised, he is not

aware.

It is true that the petitioner is not present before this court but when regard is given to the

compromised deed which has been brought to the notice of this court, by the counsel for the

respondent, I am of the firm view that no useful purpose is likely to be serve by calling the

petitioner to appear before this court in order to seek his version regarding the alleged

compromised. I may further like to point-out that on the compromise deed, Sh. Ram Avtar Sharma,

has indentified the signatures of the petitioner. Along-with compromised deed, a registration letter

of the petitioner has also been filed which goes to show that consequent upon the compromise,

allegedly took place between the parties, the petitioner has resigned from the job on having

received the dues, amounting to Rs. 75,841/- only.

As from the documents, which have been produced before the court, I am satisfied that a

lawful compromise has already been effected between the parties, out of court, I proceed to record

the statement of Sh. Ram Avtar Sharma. Sr. Dy. Personal Manager, which is accordingly recorded.

His statement has also been countersigned by Sh. Rajeev Sharma, Adv. for the respondent.

Keeping in view the statement of Sh. Ram Avtar Sharma Sr. Dy. Personal Manager, made

before this court, has also been countersigned by Sh. Rajeev Sharma Adv. for the respondent, I am

fully satisfied that a lawful compromised had been effected between the parties, as per compromise

deed Ex. RA on which the petitioner has signed encircled A. Vide cheque Ex. RB, the petitioner

has also been paid Rs. 75,841/- only by way of his full and final settlement. Vide Ex. RC, the

petitioner has also tendered his registration. Consequently, for the compromised/ settlement,

already having taken place between the parties, out of court, the reference, as under:

Whether dismissal of services of Sh. Mini Lal S/o Sh. Gopaljee, card no. 840, token no.

587 by the management of m/s Sidhartha Super Spinning Mills Ltd., Nihal Khera,

Tehsil Nalaghar, District Solan, H.P. vide orders dated 7.6.2008, is proper and

justified? if not, what relief and consequential service benefits the above workmen is

entitle to?

Which has been made to this court, by the appropriate government, stands answered to

have been compromised between the parties. The terms of compromise dated Ex. RA, which is also

accompanied by Ex. RB (copy of cheque in the sum of Rs. 75,841/-), and Ex. RC (registration letter

of the petitioner) shall form part and parcel of this award/ order.

Since, the reference stands answered and compromised an application under order 14 rules

5 C.P.C, which had been made by respondent/applicant, also stands disposed of a compromised. It

2347

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 31 tqykbZ] 2014@9 Jko.k] 1936

be tagged with main case file, after registration. Let a copy of this award/ order be sent to the

appropriate government for publication in the official Gazette. File, after completion be consigned

to records.

Announced

29.5.2014

Sd/-

Presiding Judge

Labour Court, Shimla

________

Ref. 48 of 2008

President /General Secty V/s M.D. HP GIC Ltd Shimla.

26.5.2014:-

Present: - S/Shri Devi Lal ,President and Lekh Raj, General secretary , GIC employees union,

(registered) for petitioner.

Sh. Hement Vaid Adv. for the respondent No. 1.

Sh. Bhagawan chand, Adv. for the respondent No. 2.

It has been stated by Sh. Lekh Raj General Secretary, GIC Employees Union, (registered)

that already compromised has been effected between the parties. Is this regard, he has produced

before the court, a resolution dated 4.3.2014. He further stated that consequent upon the

compromise, which has already been effected between the parties, out of court, the reference which

has been made to this court be disposed of as withdrawn.

I have considered the statement of Sh. Lekh Raj, made before this court. His statement to

this effect recorded separately.

Since, a lawful compromise/settlement has already been effected between the parties, which

is also borne out from the resolution dated 4.3.2014, Ex.PA, to the satisfaction of this court, the

reference has been made to this court and is as under:

Whether the demands raised vide demand notice dated 28.9.2003 (copy enclosed) by

president/ General Secretary , General Industries Corporation Employees Union

(Regd.) Himrus Building Cart Road Shimla -1 and vide demand charter dated

14.10.2005, (copy enclosed) by the group of the workers/employees i.e. V.K Thakur

and other five employees i.e. S/ shri Kuldeep Sharma, H R Thakur, Lokender

Banshtu, T.D Sharma and Ms. Veena Harta before the managing director, Himachal

Pradesh General Industries Corporation Ltd. (H.P. Government undertaking )

Himrus Building cart Road Shimla -1 are justified or unjustified ? If justified, then

what relief by way of seniority and other benefits the employees of the H.P General

Industries corporation are entitled to?

Stands disposed of/ answered as having been compromised/ settled between the parties in

terms of the statement of Sh. Lekh Raj General secretary of GIS employees union ( Regd.) which

shall form part and parcel of this order/ award.

2348

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 31 tqykbZ] 2014@9 Jko.k] 1936

Let a copy of this award/ order be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the

official Gazette. File, after completion, be consigned to records.

Announced

26.5.2014.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge

Labour Court , Shimla.

_________

Ref. 22 of 2014

Naseeb singh and other versus Factory Manager M/s,wipro electronic ltd.

10/6/2014

Present:-

S/shri Naseeb Singh, (Secretary), and Rajinder singh (President of workers committee

of M/s wipro Electronic pvt. Ltd. (Wipro Enterprise Pvt. Ltd.) village Katha, Teshil

Baddi, Sistrict, Solan H.P, for the petitioner.

Sh. Girish Lal, manager HR along with shri Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It has bene stated by S/Shri Naseeb Singh, (Secretary), and Rajinder Singh(President) that a

compromise/ settlement has already been effected between the parties. In this regard, they have also

filed joint memo of settlement.

On having gone through the memorandum of settlement, which has been filed before this

court and also the statement, made at bar by S/shri Naseeb Singh, (Secretary), and Rajinder singh

(President), I am satisfied that a compromise, out of court, has already been effected between the

parties. Thus, I proceed to record the composite statement of S/shri Naseeb Singh,(secretary) and

Rajinder singh (President) for the petitioner , which is recorded.

Shri Girish lal, Manager, HR has also supported the version of aforesaid Naseeb singh,

(Seretary), and Rajinder singh (President) and in this regard his statement also recorded separately

which has also been countersigned by Shri Rajeev Kumar Sharma, Adv, for the respondent.

Having regard to the composite statement made by the aforesaid Naseeb singh and Rajinder

Singh, which has been admitted to be correct by shri Girish lal, Manager, HR for the respondent ,

the reference which has been made to this court and is as under:

Whether demands rasied by workers committee consisting of S/shri Rajinder, Punjab,

Ravi, Naseeb and Shashi employed by M/s Wipro electronics, Pvt. Ltd., village katha,

P.O 7 Tehsil Baddi, District Solan, HP vide demand notice dated 18/4/2013 (copy

enclosed) regarding increase in the wages of works employed in the establishment to

be fulfilled by the management/employer of M/s Wipro electronics pvt. Ltd village

Katha, P.O & Tehsil Baddi, District Solan is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the

aggrieved workmen are entitled to form the above employer/management?

Stands answered in terms of memorandum of settlement ex. PA and accompanying

annexure A, which is Ex PB. The terms of settlement Ex.PA and accompanying , Ex. PB, along

2349

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 31 tqykbZ] 2014@9 Jko.k] 1936

with composite statement of S/Sh. Naseeb Singh (Secretary) and Rajinder Singh (President), shall

form part and parcel of this order/award. Let a copy of this award/order be sent to the appropriate

government for publication in the official gazette. File, after completion, be consigned to records.

Announced

10/6/2014

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour court, Shimla.

_________

Ref. 116 of 2009

Sh. Ashok Kumar v/s M/s janta watch & Radio Services, Shimla.

11/6/2014

Present;

Petitioner with Sh. Pawan gautam, adv for petitioner.

Sh. Devender Thakur, adv for respondent.

It has been stated by the petitioner that already , out of court, a compromise had been

effected between the parties. He further stated that now, he does not want to prosecute his statement

of claim, filed before this court, consequent upon the reference which was made by the appropriate

government . On having considered the statement made, at bar, by the petitioner, I am of the

opinion that already the matter stands amicably settled between the parties. Thus, I proceed to

record his statement, which is recorded accordingly.

Since, on the statement made before this court by the petitioner, this court is satisfied that a

lawful compromise has already been effected between the parties , out of court, the reference which

has been made by the p appropriate government, as under;

Whether action of the employer i.e Sh. Paramjeet singh, Proprietor, M/s janta watch

& Radio services, shop No. 134 lower bazaar Shimla-1 to terminate the services of sh. Ashok

kumar s/o late sh. Hari singh w.e.f. feb., 2006 as alleged by the workman without complying

the provisions of the industrial disputes act,1947 is proper and justified.? If not, what relief of

service benefits the above applicant is entitled to?

Stands answered/disposed of a s having been compromised by the parties, out of court. The

statement of petitioner, made before this court, shall form part and parcel of this order/award. Let a

copy of this award/order be sent to the appropriate government for publication in the official

gazette. File, after completion, be consigned to records.

Announced;

11/6/2014

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour court, Shimla.

2350

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 31 tqykbZ] 2014@9 Jko.k] 1936

Raj Kumar V/s M/s Ameya Plastics P/sahib

12.6.2014

Ref. 3/2014

Present:-

Smt. Veena Sood Adv. for the petitioner.

Sh. Tarsem Singh, HR Executive for the respondent.

An authorized letter has been field by Sh. Tarsem Singh on behalf of respondent, which has

been taken on record. It has been stated, at bar, By Sh. Tarsem singh that already an amicable

settlement has been effected between the parties. In support of his such contention, he has produced

before this court compromise memorandum/settlement. The appointment letter, which has been

issued to the petitioner dated 2/11/2013, has also been produced. Besides, reply to the reference,

which has been made to this court, also filed.

On hearing said Tarsem Singh , it appears to me that a compromise/settlement has already

been effected between the parties out of. Thus, I proceed to record his statement which is recorded

accordingly.

In view of the statement made by Sh. Tarsem singh, HR Executive for the respondent, I am

satisfied that a lawful settlement/compromise has already been effected between the parties.

Consequently, for the compromise/settlement already having taken place between the

parties, out of court, the reference, as under.

Whether the termination of services of Sh. Rajkumar S/o Sh Nathi Ram. R/o Village

Majari,P.O Giri Nagar Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, HP w.e.f 18/10/2012 by

the employer M/s Ameya Plastics, contractor of M/s Marico, Ltd., village Surajpur,

P.O Puruwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib District Sirmour. HP 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?

Which has been made to this court by the appropriate government, stands answered to have

been compromised between the parties. Let a copy of this award/order be sent to the appropriate

government for publication in the official gazette. File, after completion, be consigned, to records.

Announced

12/6/2014

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

__________

IN THE COURT OF A.S JASWAL, PRESIDING JUDGE, HP INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA

Ref no. 104 of 2010.

Instituted on 8.9.2010.

Decided on 11.6.2014.

Nek Chand S/o Shri Khyali Ram, R/o Village Palag, P.O Kadharghat, Tehsil Sunni,

District, Shimla, HP.

..Petitioner.

2351

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 31 tqykbZ] 2014@9 Jko.k] 1936

VS.

State of Himachal Pradesh through Principal Secretary (Forests) to the government of

Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2.

The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Shimla, HP.

The Range Officer, Forest Range Sunni, Tehsil Sunni, District Shimla, HP.

..Respondents.

Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For petitioner:

Shri R.R Rahi, Advocate

For respondents:

Shri Surender Negi, Ld. DDA.

AWARD

The reference for adjudication, is as under:-

"Whether the verbal termination of the services of Shri Nek Chand S/o Shri Khyali

Ram by the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Shimla (HP) w.e.f. 1.3.2009,

without serving him chargesheet & without holding enquiry and without complying

with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to

what back wages, service benefits and relief the above named workman is entitle to?”

2. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that initially, he was engaged as daily rated beldar

w.e.f. 1.1.2005, with the respondents department and worked as such at Kedarghat beat, Sunni

Range, Forest Division Shimla. From his initial date of engagement, he had been working,

continuously and uninterruptedly, without any break, for more than 240 days in each calendar year.

Although, he had worked upto 31.2.2009, continuously, but to this sheer surprise, on 1.4.2009,

when he reported for duties, as per routine, the respondent no.3 (Range Officer), straightway

refused to allow him to perform his duties. In fact, on that date, he had been orally apprized that his

services were no more required and stood terminated w.e.f. 1.4.2009. It is alleged that since, his

services had been terminated without any notice and holding enquiry, the same was in violation of

the provisions of section 25-F, 25-G & H of the Act. It is further averred that persons junior to him

have been retained in service and that their names are Om Prakash, Yog Raj, Ramesh, Thakur Dass,

Hem Dass etc. Since, his services had been terminated in violation of the provisions of the Act, he

deserves to be reinstated with all the consequential service benefits including back-wages.

3. The claim Petition has been contested by asserting that the petitioner had been engaged

on muster roll as seasonal labourer, on daily wages basis, w.e.f. Jan., 2005 and that his engagement

was purely based on the availability of work/funds. Except the year 2006, he did not complete 240

days in any calendar year. Even, preceding the date of his temporary disengagement, he had not

completed 240 working days. It is further maintained that the services of the petitioner had been

disengaged, on the completion of seasonal work, during the month of March, 2009. It is further

explained that daily wagers are engaged by work incharge (forest guard) as per the quantum of

various seasonal works. Such engagement is also based on the seniority of daily wagers, so

maintained at beat level. It is further asserted that since the petitioner had been engaged for various

seasonal forestry works, his disengagement did not attract the provisions of the Act. It is further

maintained that since regular work, for the whole year is not available, for this reason, the

respondent department engages daily wagers for seasonal forestry works during winter and rainy

seasons. Since, in the year, 2006, various works were available under CAT Plan of Koldam Hydro

2352

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 31 tqykbZ] 2014@9 Jko.k] 1936

Electric Project, the petitioner worked for more than 240 days in the said year. Thereafter, the

works of said plan became over and for this reason, neither any work was available with the

respondents nor funds. It is further asserted that the petitioner is being engaged frequently on

various forestry works subject to their availability and that during the winter season of 2010, he

was engaged in Bhajji Range. Again, during the rainy season of 2011, he was engaged due to the

availability of work and funds. Other allegations denied.

4. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues which were struck on

16.11.2011.

Whether the termination of the services of petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. 1.3.2009, is in

violation of the provisions of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947?

OPP……..

If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, to what relief, the petitioner is entitled to?

OPP……….

Relief.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record

of the case carefully.

6. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing issues for determination my

findings on the aforesaid issues are as under.

Issue no.1 Yes.

Issue no.2 Entitled to reinstatement in service with seniority and continuity but without back

wages.

Relief.

Reference answered in favour of the petitioner, per operative part of award.

Reasons for findings

Issue no.1& 2.

7. Being interlinked, both these issues are taken up together for discussion and decision.

8. The contention of the petitioner is that his services have been terminated in violation of

the provisions of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.2009. On the other hand, the defence version is that since, the

petitioner had been engaged for seasonal works, subject to their availability, his services were

disengaged in the month of March, 2009, on the completion of seasonal work. The defence is

further to this effect that except the year, 2006, the petitioner had not completed 240 days in any

calendar year. It is further revealed from the reply, filed by the respondents, that during the winter

season of 2010, the petitioner was reengaged in Bhajji Range. He was again re-engaged during

rainy season of 2011, due to the availability of work and funds.

9. The question which arises before this Court is whether at the time of engaging the

services of the petitioner as daily rated beldar, it was brought to his notice that his services were

being engaged only for seasonal works and that the same would automatically stand disengaged

2353

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 31 tqykbZ] 2014@9 Jko.k] 1936

after the completion of the season work. I may mention that there is no such document, brought by

the respondents, on file, which may go to show that when the services of the petitioner were

engaged on 1.1.2005, he had been made to know in this regard. When, the services of the petitioner

stood disengaged on 1.4.2009, neither he had been issued any notice nor paid any compensation in

lieu thereof. The plea which has been taken by the respondents is to this effect that since the

petitioner had not completed 240 days in the twelve calendar months preceding his termination, no

such notice was required to be given to him.

10. When regard is given to the evidence of the petitioner, as per his affidavit, it is

revealed that he had completed 240 days in each calendar year including the one preceding his

alleged illegal termination. He further stated that upto 31.3.2009, he had worked, continuously,

from the date of his initial engagement i.e w.e.f. 1.1.2005. On 1.4.2009, he had not been allowed to

perform his duties by the Range Officer, Forest Range, Sunni, who, on that day, orally apprized

him that his services were no more required and stood terminated. He further stated that S/Shri Om

Prakash, Yog Raj, Ramesh, Thakur Dass, Hem Dass etc., who are junior to him, have been retained

in service by the respondents. In the cross-examination, he stated that in the month of March, 2009,

his services had been disengaged on the completion of seasonal work. For seasonal works, the

labourers are engaged on the basis of seniority and on the completion of work, they are disengaged

temporarily. He admitted that in the Forest Department, works are generally available during winter

and rainy season. He admitted that during the winter of 2010, he was engaged on work. In the year,

2011, he had also worked.

11. When, regard is given to the evidence of the petitioner, it is revealed that he has no

knowledge that for seasonal works, the number of daily wagers are determined as per the work and

availability of funds. His evidence further shows that in the month of March, 2009, his services had

been disengaged after the completion of seasonal work.

12. Shri Narender Kumar (RW-1) says that the petitioner had been engaged in the month

of Jan., 2005, as seasonal labourer, subject to the availability of the work and funds. Except the

year, 2006, he had not completed 240 days in any calendar year. Ex. RW-1/A, is the mandays chart

of the petitioner. In the month of March, 2009, the petitioner had been disengaged on the

completion of seasonal work. As far as seasonal work is concerned, it is not available during the

whole year. Such works are available during winter and rainy seasons. The services of the

petitioner had never been disengaged illegally. In the years, 2010 and 2011, he (petitioner) had

again been engaged. In the cross-examination, he admitted that in the month of March, 2009, when

the services of the petitioner were terminated, neither any notice was issued nor he was paid

compensation. He further admitted that after the disengagement of the petitioner S/Shri Om

Prakash, Yog Raj, Ramesh, Thakur Dass, Hem Dass etc., remained on work, since March, 2009,

continuously. He explained that said daily wagers are not junior to the petitioner.

13. The respondents have sought to justify the disengagement of the petitioner to be legal

because he had not completed 240 days in the twelve calendar months preceding his termination. In

this regard reliance has been placed on Ex. PW-1/A, the mandays chart of the petitioner, which

goes to show that except the year, 2006, he had not completed 240 days in any calendar year. I may

mention that from the perusal of this document, it is revealed that in the year, 2009, the petitioner

had worked for 59 days and in the year, 2008, for 168 days. Form this document, it is quite clear

that he had not completed 240 days in the twelve calendar months preceding his alleged illegal

termination. However, this document further goes to show that in the year, 2006, he (petitioner) had

worked for 242 days. Now, it is to be seen as to whether the 242 days for which the petitioner had

worked in the year, 2006, can be taken for his being entitled to the benefits of section 25-F of the

Act. In Suraj Pal Singh and others Vs. P.O Labour Court No. III and another, 2002 LAB. I.C

2897 it has been held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court that : period under section 25-B cannot be

2354

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 31 tqykbZ] 2014@9 Jko.k] 1936

restricted to immediately preceding calendar year. It is further held that employee who has worked

for 240 days in any calendar year preceding his termination would be entitled to the benefit under

section 25-F.

14. When the ratio of the case law (supra) is applied to the facts of the present case, it is

quite clear that in the year, 2006, the petitioner had worked for 242 days. Thus, it can be said that

for his having worked for more than 240 days, in the year 2006, would make him entitled to the

benefit under section 25-F of the Act. It is admitted case of the respondents that before

disengaging/terminating the services of the petitioner, neither he had been given one month’s notice

in writing indicating the reasons for his retrenchment nor he was paid, in lieu of such notice, wages

for the period of the notice. Further, at the time of his retrenchment, he (petitioner) had also not

been paid compensation. Since, the services of the petitioner had been disengaged/terminated

without having complied with the requirements of section 25-F of the Act, the same is illegal for

being against the provisions of the Act. I may also like to point-out that from the evidence of Shri

Narender Kuamr (RW-1), it is revealed that S/Shri Om Prakash, Yog Raj, Ramesh, Thakur Dass,

Hem Dass etc., were kept in service after March, 2009, when the services of the petitioner came to

be disengaged. His evidence further makes it clear that said persons are not junior to the petitioner.

On the record, the respondents have brought the mandays chart of said Om Prakash and others.

From his chart, it is revealed that Om Prakash (at serial no.3), Thakur Dass (at serial no. 4) and

Hem Dass (at serial no. 5), had been engaged on 1.1.2005. Thus, from this document, it is quite

clear that said Om Prakash and others, were also engaged on 1.1.2005, the date, on which the

petitioner was also engaged, as is evident from his mandays chart Ex. RW-1/A. When, the

petitioner is not junior to said Om Pakash and others, it is not understandable as to why his services

were disengaged after March, 2009, whereas the services of said Om Prakash etc., were retained. In

this way, it can be said that the respondents have also violated the provisions of section 25-G, in

disengaging the services of the petitioner. The evidence, on record, further goes to show that in the

year, 2010, the petitioner had been reengaged and he worked for 226 days as is evident from his

mandays chart Ex. RW-1/A. In the year 2011, he worked for 136 days. I may mention that if there

had been no funds or availability of the works, then, the petitioner was not to be reengaged in the

years, 2010 and 2011. In this way, having regard to the legal position and also discussion forgoing,

I hold that the services of the petitioner had been terminated in illegal and unjustified manner after

March, 2009.

15. Now, the next question which arises is to ascertain as to what service benefits, the

petitioner is entitled to. Neither, in the claim petition nor in his evidence, the petitioner has stated

that after his illegal disengagement, he had remained un-employed. Further, this aspect cannot be

overlooked that in the month of Jan., 2010, the petitioner was again engaged. Again, his services

were engaged in the month of Jan., 2011, as is evident from Ex. RW-1/A. Although, the counsel for

the petitioner has urged with vehemence that the petitioner is entitled for back wages and in support

of his such contention, reliance has also been placed on 2003 (4) SET, 350, Divisional Engineer

Telecom Coaxial Cable Project, Rajahmundry Vs. Mamidi Venkata Ramana and another but

in my view the petitioner cannot be said to be entitled for back-wages, particularly, when he has not

stated that after his disengagement, he remained un-employed. Since, the services of the petitioner

had been terminated in violation of the provisions of the Act, I hold that he is entitled to be

reinstated in service with seniority and continuity but without back wages. Accordingly, my answer

to both these issues is accordingly in “yes”.

Relief

As a sequel to my findings on the aforesaid issues, the claim of the petitioner is allowed

with the result, he is ordered to be reinstated in service forthwith with seniority and continuity but

without back wages. Consequently, the reference stands answered in favour of the petitioner and

2355

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 31 tqykbZ] 2014@9 Jko.k] 1936

against the respondent. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for

publication in official gazette. File, after completion be consigned to records.

Announced in the open court today this day of 11th June, 2014 in the presence of parties

counsels.

(A.S JASWAL),

Presiding Judge,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Shimla.

__________

IN THE COURT OF A.S JASWAL, PRESIDING JUDGE, HP INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA

Ref no. 105 of 2010.

Instituted on 8.9.2010.

Decided on 11.6.2014.

Om Prakash S/o Shri Devi Dass, R/o V.P.O Kadharghat, Tehsil Sunni, District, Shimla, HP.

..Petitioner.

VS.

State of Himachal Pradesh through Principal Secretary (Forests) to the government of

Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2.

The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Shimla, HP.

The Range Officer, Forest Range Sunni, Tehsil Sunni, District Shimla, HP.

..Respondents.

Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For petitioner:

Shri R.R Rahi, Advocate

For respondents:

Shri Surender Negi, Ld. DDA.

AWARD

The reference for adjudication, is as under:-

"Whether the verbal termination of the services of Shri Om Prakash S/o Shri Devi

Dass by the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Shimla (HP) w.e.f. 1.3.2009,

without serving him chargesheet & without holding enquiry and without complying

with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to

what back wages, service benefits and relief the above named workman is entitle to?”

2. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that initially, he was engaged as daily rated beldar

w.e.f. 1.1.2005, with the respondents department and worked as such at Kedarghat beat, Sunni

Range, Forest Division Shimla. From his initial date of engagement, he had been working,

continuously and uninterruptedly, without any break, for more than 240 days in each calendar year.

Although, he had worked upto 31.3.2009, continuously, but to this sheer surprise, on 1.4.2009,

when he reported for duties, as per routine, the respondent no.3 (Range Officer), straightway

refused to allow him to perform his duties. In fact, on that date, he had been orally apprized that his

services were no more required and stood terminated w.e.f. 1.4.2009. It is alleged that since, his

2356

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 31 tqykbZ] 2014@9 Jko.k] 1936

services had been terminated without any notice and holding enquiry, the same was in violation of

the provisions of section 25-F, 25-G & H of the Act. It is further averred that persons junior to him

have been retained in service and that their names are Om Prakash, Yog Raj, Ramesh, Thakur Dass,

Hem Dass etc. Since, his services had been terminated in violation of the provisions of the Act, he

deserves to be reinstated with all the consequential service benefits including back-wages.

3. The claim Petition has been contested by asserting that the petitioner had been engaged

on muster roll as seasonal labourer on daily wages basis, w.e.f. Jan., 2005 and that his engagement

was purely based on the availability of work/funds. Except the year 2006, he did not complete 240

days in any calendar year. Even, preceding the date of his temporary disengagement, he had not

completed 240 working days. It is further maintained that the services of the petitioner had been

disengaged on the completion of seasonal work, during the month of March, 2009. It is further