jkti=] fgekpy izns'k

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

'kqØokj] 08 ebZ] 2015@18 oS'kk[k] 1937

fgekpy izns'k ljdkj

LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla, the 05^th May, 2015

No. Sharm (A) 6-1/2014 (Awards).—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 of the Government of

Himachal Pradesh:—

26&jkti=@2015&08&05&2015 ¼699½

700

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 ebZ] 2015@18 oS'kk[k] 1937

Sl. No.

Case No.

August, 2013

Title of the Case

Date of

Award

22/2012

Shri Pardeep Kumar V/s XEN, HPSEB Shimla.

12-02-2015

96/2010

Shri Hari Ram V/s HPSEB, Shimla.

11-03-2015

20/2012

Shri Hari Singh V/s HPSEB Chopal.

11-03-2015

13/2014

Shri Rakesh Kumar V/S Dagshai Public School, Solan. 10-03-2015

14/2014

Shri Manju Bala V/S -do-

10-03-2015

By order,

Sd/-

Pr. Secretary (Labour & Employment).

____________

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

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA

Ref no. 22 of 2012.

Instituted on 31.5.2012.

Decided on. 12.2.2015.

Pradeep Kumar S/o Shri Paras Ram R/o Pragti Kuteer, Shanan New Bhalai, P.O Sanjauli

Shimla (HP).

. .Petitioner.

VS.

The Executive Engineer, H.P.S.E.B. Electrical Division, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P.

. .Respondent.

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

For petitioner:

Shri Rahul Kashyap, Advocate.

For respondent:

Shri Ramakant Sharma, Advocate.

AWARD

The reference, for adjudication, is as under:

“Whether termination of the services of Shri Pradeep Kumar S/o Shri Paras Ram R/o

Pragati Kuteer Shanan, new Bhalai, P.O Sanjauli Shimla (HP) by the Executive

Engineer, HPSEB Electricla Division Shimla District Shimla w.e.f. 26.2.1994 without

following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If

701

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 ebZ] 2015@18 oS'kk[k] 1937

not, to what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation

the above workman is entitled to from the above employer?”

In nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that he was initially engaged as daily waged

beldar, on 26.2.1988, by the respondent and worked as such till 25.5.1988. Again, he was

reengaged on 5.1.1990 and continued till 18.11.1991, when his services were dispensed with

without following the provisions of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as Act). It

is further averred that on 7.6.1994, he had been given assurance by the concerned XEN that he

would be reengaged as and when the work was to be available. However, the needful was not done.

With the hope that he (petitioner) would be reengaged, he had kept on visiting the office of the

respondent board but of no avail. Ultimately, he raised a demand notice on 29.6.2004 but the same

met with rejection on 28.12.2006. Thus, he made a representation to the Hon’ble Chief Minister

and in pursuance to the directions, made in this regard, by the Hon’ble Chief Minister, the

respondent board processed his case. Despite that, the respondent board dilly-dallied in the matter

of his reengagement. Ultimately, on 24.5.2010, he applied under RTI Act and got obtained the

required information which was supplied to him on 1.7.2010. In the information, so supplied, the

respondent board had admitted its mistake to disengage him. It is alleged that the petitioner had

completed 240 days in a calendar year. Thus, his termination was against the mandatory provisions

of the Act especifically sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H. It is further maintained that he is not

gainfully employed. Against this back-drop a prayer has been made for his reengagement, with all

the consequential service benefits, including back wages.

3. The claim of the petitioner has been contested on having raised various preliminary

objections including maintainability and that the petitioner is estopped from filing this petition due

to his own acts, conduct etc. On merits, it has been asserted that the petitioner, who had been

engaged, as daily waged beldar, on 25.1.1988, had continued to work as such with breaks till

25.5.1988, when he abandoned the job on his own sweet will. He had not completed 240 days in

any calendar year. Thereafter, he was reengaged w.e.f. 26.4.1990 and continued as such till

25.11.1991 when he again abandoned his job. Thereafter, he was reengaged on 10.2.1994 and

continued till 25.3.1994 when he again left his job. The demand notice which had been raised by

the petitioner was rightly rejected by the appropriate government. It is admitted that he had been

supplied information on 1.7.2010. Since, the petitioner had abandoned his job, on his own, there is

no question that his services had been terminated in violation of the provisions of sections 25-F, 25

G and 25-H of the Act. Other allegations denied.

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

of the respondent.

5. Pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues which were struck on

16.3.2013.

1. Whether the termination of service of petitioner by the respondent with effect from

26.2.1994 is in violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? . .OPP.

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

. .OPR.

3. Whether this petition is not maintainable as alleged?

. .OPR.

4. Whether the petitioner has abandoned the job at his own?

. .OPR.

5. Relief.

702

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 ebZ] 2015@18 oS'kk[k] 1937

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 with seniority and continuity but without back

wages.

Issue no.3

No.

Issue no.4

No.

Relief.

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

per operative part of award.

Reasons for findings

Issue no.1 & 4.

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

9. The contention of the petitioner is that his services w.e.f. 26.2.1994, had been

terminated without following the mandatory provisions of the Act. On the other hand, the defence

version is that, on his own, he had abandoned the job.

10. In his affidavit Ex. PW-1/A, the petitioner (PW-1) has supported all the facts as stated

in the petition on all material counts including that on 18.11.1991, his services had been dispensed

with without notice and paying compensation. He also stated that on 7.6.1994, the concerned XEN

had assured to reengage him subject to the availability of work but of no avail. On 29.6.2004, he

had raised a demand notice which was rejected by the appropriate government on 28.12.2006. He

had got obtained an information under the RTI Act, by moving an application, Ex. PW-1/B and that

the same is Ex. PA. He also stated that he is not gainfully employed anywhere. In the

crossexamination, he denied that for a specific work, he had been engaged and that he did not

complete 240 days in a calendar year. He also denied that, on his own, he had left the job

11. Shri Pratap Singh (RW-1), has stated that the petitioner, on his own, had left the job on

25.5.1988. He also remained absent from 26.1.1988 to 25.2.1988. From 26.4.1990 to 25.11.1991,

he was again reengaged. Ex. R-1 and Ex. R-2, are his mandays chart. In the cross-examination, he

admitted that during 1990 and 1991, the petitioner had completed 240 days. He expressed his

ignorance that the persons, named in mark B, who are junior to the petitioner, were reengaged or

not.

12. From Ex. R-1, mandays chart, it is abundantly clear that w.e.f. 26.4.1990 to 28.3.1991,

the petitioner had worked for 316 days. In his affidavit Ex. PW- 1/A, the petitioner has also stated

that on 18.11.1991, his services had been dispensed with. Although, the reference, which has been

made to this Court pertains to the alleged termination of the services of the petitioner w.e.f.

26.2.1994, without following the provisions of the Act, but there is no such record produced by the

respondent that in fact, the petitioner had worked till 26.2.1994, when his services were allegedly

dispensed with. I may mention that even, from Ex. R-2, the mandays chart, it is abundantly clear

703

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 ebZ] 2015@18 oS'kk[k] 1937

that the petitioner had worked till 25.4.1991. Since, in the preceding twelve calendar months he

(petitioner) had completed more than 240 days as is evident from Ex. R-2, it was incumbent upon

the respondent to have complied with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. For the failure of

the respondent to have complied with the provisions of the said Act, I have no hesitation to hold

that his termination w.e.f. 25.4.1991, is against the provisions of the Act. Although, the defence

version is to this effect that the petitioner had abandoned the job, on his own, but in the statement

of Shri Pradeep Kumar (RW-1), it has nowhere come that the petitioner, who had allegedly left the

job, had been sent any notice/communication to resume the work. It has been held by our own

Hon’ble High Court in latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 903 State of HP & Others Vs. Bhatag Ram &

Another. that:—

“Plea of abandonment of job- merely raising the plea of abandonment is nothing but has to

be established on the basis of facts. No facts led to substantiate the plea.”

13. For my above discussion and law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court (supra), I have

no hesitation in holding that the services of the petitioner had been terminated/disengaged, illegally

and in an unjustified manner and that too without complying with the provisions of the Act.

Accordingly, my answer to issue no.1 is in “yes” and issue no.4 is in “no”.

Issue no.2

14. The petitioner has claimed his reinstatement with all the consequential service benefits.

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has urged with vehemence that having regard to

the short period for which the petitioner had remained engaged, he should be awarded

compensation and not reinstatement. In support of his such contention, he has relied upon (2013) 5

SCC 136, Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and another Vs. Gitam Singh.

However, I am of the view that the manner in which the services of the petitioner had stood

disengaged, he deserves to be reinstated. The services of the petitioner had been terminated on

25.4.1991 but he had raised the demand notice after about 13 years i.e on 29.6.2004. Keeping all

the facts, in mind, it would be in the interest of justice if he is ordered to be reinstated when he had

raised the demand notice i.e w.e.f. 29.6.2004. Accordingly, I order so. As far as grant of back

wages to the petitioner are concerned, I may mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2010 (1)

SLJ S.C 70, M/s Ritu Marbals Vs. Prabhakant Shukla has ruled that “full back wages cannot be

granted mechanically, upon a order of termination be declared illegal. It is further held that

reinstatement must not be accompanied by payment of full back wages even for the period when the

workman remained out of service and contributed little or nothing to the Industry”.

16. Consequently, for what has been stated and observed above, the petitioner is held

entitled to be reinstated in service with seniority and continuity but without back wages from the

date when he raised demand notice i.e w.e.f. 29.6.2004. Thus, my answer to this issue is in “Yes”.

Issue no.3

16. When, the reference came to be made to this Court, the petitioner filed the statement of

claim. Thus, it cannot be said that this petition is not maintainable. Thus, by holding it to be

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

Relief.

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

partly allowed and as such the respondent is directed to reinstate him with seniority and continuity

but without back wages from the date when he raised demand notice i.e w.e.f. 29.6.2004. Let a

704

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 ebZ] 2015@18 oS'kk[k] 1937

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 12th Feb., 2015.

(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. 96 of 2010.

Instituted on 7.8.2010

Decided on. 11.3.2015.

Hari Ram S/o Shri Jathu Ram R/o Vilage Mehri Kathala, P.O Nalti, Tehsil Ghumarwin,

District Bilsapur, HP.

. .Petitioner.

VS.

1. The Secy. HPSEB, Vidyut Bhawan, Shimla-4.

2. The Director, SJVNL (NJPC), BCS New, Shimla, HP. . .Respondents.

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

For petitioner:

Shri R.K Khidta, Advocate.

For respondent No.1:

Shri Ramakant Sharma, Advocate.

For respondent No.2:

Shri S.D Sharma, Advocate.

AWARD

The reference, for adjudication, is as under:

“Whether termination of the services of Shri Hari Ram S/o Shri Jathu Ram by

the above employers w.e.f. 30.4.1991 (F.N) without complying the provisions of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and clause 14 of the Certified Standing Orders of the

HPSEB, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief of service benefits including

reinstatement, arrear of back wages and compensation the above named workman is

entitled to from the above employers?”

2. In nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that he was engaged as driver by the respondent

in the office of Assistant Engineer, Nathpa Jhakri (E) P&M , Sub Division Dhalli, Shimla-12 w.e.f.

1.5.1989 and worked as such till 30.4.1991, continuously. In fact, on 20.4.1991, said Assistant

Engineer had served him notice whereby his services stood terminated/retrenched w.e.f. 30.4.1991.

Immediately, after having been served with said notice, dated 20.4.1991, he filed OA no. 537/1991,

705

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 ebZ] 2015@18 oS'kk[k] 1937

before the Hon’ble Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred as Tribunal), on 29.4.1991, and

the same was allowed vide order dated 2.6.2000. Since, respondent no.1, had felt aggrieved by the

said judgment, a writ petition was filed before the Hon’ble High Court, registered as CWP No.

805/2000, in which the judgment of the Tribunal was set aside, as per judgment passed on

17.12.2004, mainly on the ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

However, the Hon’ble High Court had given liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate

authority under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as Act). It is

further averred that after the passing of judgment of the Hon’ble High Court, the petitioner filed

demand notice before the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Shimla but the conciliation

proceedings failed and thus a reference was caused to be made to this Court. In the order/judgment

dated 2.6.2000, passed by the Tribunal, the termination of the petitioner had been set aside on the

ground that the mandatory provisions of the Act as well as clause 14 of the HPSEB Standing

Orders were violated. It is further averred that the petitioner had completed 240 days in each

calendar year to the satisfaction of the respondents. After his illegal termination, he had continued

to visit the office of the Assistant Engineer, number of times but of no avail. It is further averred

that the respondents have also engaged new persons without calling the petitioner. Since, the

services of the petitioner had been terminated in violation of the provisions of section 25-F, 25-G,

25-H and 25-N of the Act as well as Standing Orders of the HPSEB, he deserves to be reinstated

with all the consequential service benefits including full back wages and regularization.

3. The claim of the petitioner has been contested by respondent no.1 on having raised

various preliminary objections including maintainability, limitation and that it is bad for non

joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties because w.e.f. 1.8.1991, all assets, works, liabilities as

well as staff working for Nathpa Jhakri Project stood transferred and vested in NJPC (now known

as SJVN) which being an independent legal entity is a necessary party. On merits, it has been sated

that at the relevant time, NJPC known as SJVNL was part and parcel of HPSEB but now since

1.8.1991, it is an independent body and working as joint venture under State and Central

governments. The petitioner had been engaged as daily waged driver purely on temporary basis till

the appointment of regular driver, who joined his post on 30.4.1991. It is further pleaded that the

services of the petitioner had been terminated after serving due notice and offering payment in lieu

of notice for retrenchment, wages for such period as the notice fell short of one month, along-with

the retrenchment compensation, in terms of the provisions of the Act but he failed to accept the

same. It is further reiterated that in view of the posting of the new incumbent, the services of the

petitioner were no longer required. As far as the provisions of Standing Orders are concerned, those

are not applicable in the organization of the replying respondent. Annexure RA-6, is the copy of

order dated 31.7.1991, transferring all the assets and liabilities to the NJPC. Since, the

disengagement of the petitioner w.e.f. 30.4.1991, had been made by the competent authority, in

accordance with law, therefore, such action is perfectly legal and warrants no interference. Other

allegations either admitted or denied.

4. Respondent no.2, also contested the claim of the petitioner by raising preliminary

objection qua maintainability. On merits, it has been stated that well before 1.8.1991, when the

SJVN (respondent no.2) came into being, as an independent entity, the services of the petitioner

had already stood terminated by respondent no.1. It is further averred that HPSEB rules and

regulations continue to govern the service conditions of those employees who had been transferred

to SJVN Ltd. Since, the replying respondent had not in any way involved in the engagement or

retrenchment of the services of the petitioner, no relief can be claimed against it. Other allegations

denied.

5. By filing rejoinders, the petitioner has reaffirmed his own allegations by denying those

of the respondents.

706

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 ebZ] 2015@18 oS'kk[k] 1937

6. Pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues which were struck on

2.4.2011.

1. Whether the services of the workman Hari Ram have been terminated in an illegal

manner without complying the provisons of the Industrial Disputes Act and standing

orders of the respondent Board as alleged?

. .OPP.

2. If issue no. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioner workman is entitled for

reinstatement, back wages and other statutory benefits as prayed?

. .OPP.

3. Whether this claim petition is not maintainable?

. .OPR.

4. Relief.

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

of the case carefully.

8. 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 with seniority and continuity but without back

wages.

Issue no.3.

Yes against respondent no.2.

Relief.

Reference answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent

No.1, per operative part of award.

Reasons for findings

Issue no.1 & 2.

9. Being interlinked and interconnected, both these issues are taken up together for

discussion and decision.

10. It has been specifically stated by the petitioner that consequent upon notice, dated

20.4.1991, his services had stood terminated w.e.f. 30.4.1991 in violation of the provisions of the

Act. The plea of respondent no.1 is that on having complied with the provisions of the Act, the

services of the petitioner had been legally terminated. Since, a regular incumbent/driver had joined

his duties w.e.f. 1.5.1991, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The stand taken by respondent

no.2 is that on 1.8.1991, when it come into being, as an independent entity, neither the services of

the petitioner had been transferred to it nor it, in any manner, had played role as far as his

termination w.e.f. 30.4.1991 was concerned.

11. The petitioner (PW-1) in his affidavit has reaffirmed the allegations as made in the

petition on all material counts including that he had completed 240 days in each calendar year

before his services were terminated in violation of the provisions of the Act. He categorically stated

that the notice which had been issued to him, was not proper. Without calling him back to join

service, the respondents have engaged new persons. In the cross-examination, he stated that w.e.f.

1.8.1991, NJPC (project) is known as SJVN. As far as HPSEB and NJPC are concerned, those are

707

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 ebZ] 2015@18 oS'kk[k] 1937

separate entities. He denied that on 1.5.1991, he had been issued notice of termination of services

with wages of one month vide mark X and that he refused to receive the same. He denied that on

30.4.1991, Shri Harish Chander, joined as regular driver. He admitted that after bifurcation, there

was no liability of HPSEB. When cross-examined on behalf of respondent no.2, he admitted that

when he was appointed, Nathpa Jhakri Project was being executed by HPSEB. He further admitted

that he had been appointed by the Board and his services had been terminated by it (Board).

12. Shri Deepak Chauhan (PW-2), stated that he could not bring the summoned record

pertaining to Hari Ram (petitioner) because the same is not available with the Board for the reason

that it already stood transferred/sent to NJPC on 1.8.1991. In OA No. 537/1991, in which

Electricity Board was a party, its stand was that the petitioner was its worker. The petitioner had

worked continuously from 1.5.1989 to 30.4.1991. On being cross-examined on behalf of

respondent no.1, he admitted that HPSEB, after 1.8.1991, had no control of the workers who were

employees of NJPC. When, cross-examined on behalf of respondent no.2, he admitted that SJVN

came into existence on 1.8.1991 and that the petitioner had been engaged by the Board which

terminated his services. He further admitted that the employees/workers who had come on the rolls,

of SJVNL, from the Board, on secondment basis, their list had been prepared. In that list, the name

of the petitioner did not figure.

13. Shri Jagat Ram (RW-1) has stated that on 1.5.1989, the petitioner was engaged as

driver on daily wages basis and that he worked, till 30.4.1991, continuously. In order to retrench

the services of the petitioner, he had been issued notice dated 20.4.1991, which is mark A. The

petitioner had been paid retrenchment compensation. HPSEB and SJVNL are separate entities. In

the cross-examination, he admitted that NJPC (project) and its offices were being run by HPSEB

till 31.7.1991. The petitioner who had been engaged by HPSEB in Nathpa Jhakri Project, was

disengaged by HPSEB on 30.4.1991. Only that staff had been transferred from NJPC to SJVNL

which had been in service on 31.7.1991. On having ben cross-examined, on behalf of respondent

no.1, he stated that he has brought no such record on the basis of which it could be said that the

petitioner had completed 240 days. The services of the petitioner had been terminated on the basis

of the notice dated 20.4.1991, the copy of which is Ex. RX. The Board has its standing orders. He

admitted that on 20.4.1991, the provisions of the Act were applicable to Electricity Board. He

admitted that if a worker had to be terminated, he was required to be given one month’s notice. The

petitioner had not been issued one month’s notice. He also admitted that along-with notice dated

20.4.1991, no compensation had been paid/sent to the petitioner. He further admitted that the work

which the petitioner was performing is still available with the Board, NJPC and SJVNL.

14. Shri Surender Sharma (RW-2) who has appeared as a witness, on behalf of respondent

no.2, has stated that SJVNL started running the Project, which was being earlier run by NJPC,

w.e.f. 1.8.1991 vide notification, Ex. RW-1/C. The employees who had been working with NJPC

till 31.7.1991 were transferred to SJVNL. The services of the petitioner had never been transferred

to SJVNL for the reason that the same stood already retrenched by the HPSEB on 30.4.1991. In the

cross-examination, he admitted that even today, the work of driver is available in SJVNL.

15. From the evidence, which has been referred to above, it is abundantly clear that the

provisions of the Act were applicable to HPSEB on 20.4.1991, when a notice for the termination of

the petitioner was issued. It has been admitted by Shri Jagat Ram (RW-1) that one month’s notice

was required to be issued to the petitioner for terminating his services. It has been stated by the

petitioner that he had completed 240 days in each calendar year before his termination. PW-2, Shri

Deepak Chauhan has stated that the petitioner had continuously worked from 1.5.1989 to

30.4.1991. Since, from the evidence, on record, it stands proved that before his termination, the

petitioner had completed 240 days, respondent no.1 (HPSEB) was required to have complied with

the provisions of section 25-F of the Act before terminating his services w.e.f. 30.4.1991. Since, the

708

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 ebZ] 2015@18 oS'kk[k] 1937

mandatory provisions of the Act had not been complied by respondent no.1 before terminating the

services of the petitioner, I hold his termination w.e.f. 30.4.1991 to be illegal and unjustified.

16. Now, the question arises as to what service benefits the petitioner is entitled to. I may

mention that from the record, it is clearly borne out that the services of the petitioner had come to

be retrenched /terminated w.e.f. 30.4.1991. Although, a plea has been taken by respondent no.1,

that, when SJVNL came into being, as a separate entity, the services of the employees of

HPSEB/NJPC, stood transferred to it. Since, the services of the petitioner had already stood

terminated w.e.f. 30.4.1991, he was not transferred to SJVNL. It has been specifically stated by

PW-2 (Deepak Chauhan) that the employees/workers who had been transferred to SJVNL, their list

had been prepared and in that list the name of the petitioner did not figure. When, the services of

the petitioner had not been terminated by respondent no.2, it cannot be directed to reinstate him.

As, the services of the petitioner had been illegally terminated by respondent no.1 (HPSEB) w.e.f.

30.4.1991, it is duty bound to reinstate him w.e.f. 1.5.1991. As far as grant of back wages to the

petitioner are concerned, I may mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2010 (1) SLJ S.C 70,

M/s Ritu Marbals Vs. Prabhakant Shukla has ruled that “full back wages cannot be granted

mechanically, upon a order of termination be declared illegal. It is further held that reinstatement

must not be accompanied by payment of full back wages even for the period when the workman

remained out of service and contributed little or nothing to the Industry”.

17. The petitioner has also claimed regularization in service. His such claim cannot be

looked into by this Court because as far as his regularization is concerned, it is to be ordered by the

department concerned as per the Policy of the State Government regarding regularization of daily

wagers.

18. Consequently, for what has been stated and observed above, the petitioner is held

entitled to be reinstated in service with seniority and continuity but without back wages w.e.f.

1.5.1991. Thus, both these issues are answered accordingly.

Issue no.3

19. An objection has been taken by the respondents that this petition is not legally

maintainable. I may mention that as far as the maintainability of this petition against respondent

no.2, is concerned, it cannot be said to be legally maintainable against it because at the relevant

time neither the petitioner had been engaged by it, on 1.5.1989, nor his services were terminated by

it w.e.f. 30.4.1991 consequent upon the notice dated 20.4.1991. Thus, I hold that although this

petition is legally maintainable against respondent no.1, it is not maintainable against respondent

no.2. Thus, this issue is answered accordingly.

Relief.

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

partly allowed and as such respondent no.1 (HPSEB) is directed to reinstate him with seniority and

continuity but without back wages w.e.f. 1.5.1991. 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 March, 2015.

(A.S JASWAL),

Presiding Judge,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla.

709

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 ebZ] 2015@18 oS'kk[k] 1937

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

TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA.

Ref no. 20 of 2012.

Instituted on 31.5.2012

Decided on. 11.3.2015.

Hari Singh S/o Sh. Kumbia Ram R/O Village Thundara, P.O. Malot, Tehsil Chopal, Distt.

Shimla, H.P.

. .Petitioner.

VS.

The Executive Engineer, H.P.S.E.B. Electrical Division, Chopal, District Shimla, H.P.

. .Respondent.

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

For petitioner: Shri Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate.

For respondent: Shri Ramakant Sharma, Advocate.

AWARD

The reference, for adjudication, is as under:

“Whether termination of the services of Shri Hari Singh S/O Sh. Kumbia Ram

R/O Village Thundara, P.O. Malot, Tehsil Chopal, Distt. Shimla HP by the Executive

Engineer, H.P.S.E.B. Electrical Division, Chopal, Distt. Shimla. w.e.f. 25.1.1990

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

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

compensation the above workman is entitled to from the above employer?”

2. In nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that he was employed as daily waged beldar on

26.12.1985 in the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, Electric Division, Nerwa under the

Electric Division Theog. In the year, 1990, a new division was created namely HPSEB, Chopal and

after the creation of new division, his services were transferred to HPSEb Sub Division Nerwa

(now Kupvi) under the HPSEB Electric Division, Chopal. To the satisfaction of his superiors, he

had been performing his duties honestly and sincerely. It is further averred that he had been

working continuously and uninterruptedly except some fictional breaks. However, on 25.1.1990, he

was orally told by the concerned Assistant Engineer that his services were no longer required and

as such he was not to come for duties w.e.f. 26.1.1990. In this way, his services were terminated

without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as

Act) as well as Standing Orders framed and notified by the respondent board. Even, the principles

of First come Last go was not followed. It is further averred that at the time of his disengagement, it

was told that he would be called back/reengaged as and when work was to be available. Thereafter,

he continued to visit the office of SDO concerned with the request to reengage him but of no avail.

In the year, 1996, he came to know that many fresh persons namely S/Shri Ram Lal, Lachhi Ram,

Dharam Singh and Ratti Ram had been engaged by the competent authority in Sub Division

HPSEB Kupvi. Since, he had not been called for reemployment, he visited the office of the

respondent with the request to reengage him but the needful was not done. In these circumstances,

710

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 ebZ] 2015@18 oS'kk[k] 1937

he was compelled to approach the Hon’ble High Court by filing Civil Writ Petition which was

registered as CWP no. 962/1996 titled as Hari Singh Vs. HPSEB, which was disposed of vide

judgment dated 1.8.1996 whereby he (petitioner) was afforded opportunity to file representation

within three weeks to his employer who (employer) was to dispose of the same within four weeks.

In compliance to the directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court, he submitted a detailed

representation to the respondent board in which he submitted his termination to be in utter violation

of the provisions of section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act as well as Standing Orders, framed and

notified by the respondent. However, without looking the factual position as well as legal

submission, made by the petitioner, his representation was rejected. Thereafter, he served a demand

notice on the competent authority and during conciliation proceedings, Executive Engineer,

HPSEB Chopal, filed detailed reply wherein it was averred that the services of the petitioner were

never terminated but he had left the same on his own. In that reply, the employer had admitted that

after his termination, many fresh persons had been engaged without calling the petitioner to join

duties. Since, the conciliation proceedings had failed, a report, in this regard, was made to the

Labour Commissioner Himachal Pradesh under section 12 of the Act. It is averred that the Labour

Commissioner, without having appreciated the facts, declined the making of reference, mainly on

the ground of delay, vide letter dated 1.2.2002. On having felt aggrieved, with the action of the

Labour Commissioner, he (petitioner) approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing Civil Writ

Petition, CWP no. 508 of 2002, which was allowed vide judgment dated 21.5.2007. Against the

judgment passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, dated 21.5.2007, an LPA bearing no. 157 of 2007,

was filed which was dismissed vide judgment dated 29.3.2012. In this way, a reference was caused

to be made to this Court by the appropriate government. It is averred that since, his services had

been terminated in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act, especially, 25-F, 25-G and 25

H, he deserves to be reengaged/reinstated with all the consequential service benefits including back

wages.

3. The claim of the petitioner has been contested on having raised various preliminary

objections including maintainability, barred by time and also that the claim raised by the petitioner

suffers from latches. On merits, it has been asserted that the petitioner who had been initially

engaged as daily waged beldar, on muster roll w.e.f. 26.3.1986 had worked as such up to 25.1.1990

under Electric Sub Division, Kupvi under the administrative control of Electric Division, HPSEB

Theog with certain interruptions/breaks. Further, he had never completed 240 days in any calendar

year. It is further averred that the services of the petitioner had never been terminated by the

replying respondent. In fact, on his own, he had left the job by not turning after 25.1.1990. Since,

he had not completed 240 days of continuous service, he had not acquired the status of temporary

workman, under the provisions of the Act, to entitle him for the service of notice as well as

payment of retrenchment compensation. Although, no fresh hands were engaged but three persons

namely S/Shri Ram Lal, Lachhi Ram and Dharam Singh had to be reengaged in pursuance of the

orders/directions passed by the Labour Court. It is further averred that from 1990 till 1996, the

petitioner never raised any dispute. Other allegations either admitted or denied.

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

5.9.2013.

1. Whether the termination of service of petitioner with effect from 25.1.1990 without

following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is illegal and unjustified as

alleged?

. . OPP.

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

. . OPR.

3. Relief.

711

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 ebZ] 2015@18 oS'kk[k] 1937

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

Accordingly in yes.

Issue no.2

Entitled to reinstatement w.e.f. 1.1.1996 but without back wages.

Relief.

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

per operative part of award.

Reasons for findings

Issue no.1.

7. It has been very specifically stated by the petitioner that his services had been

terminated/disengaged w.e.f. 25.1.1990, by the respondent, without having complied with the

mandatory provisions of the Act. On the other hand, the stand taken by the respondent is to this

effect that since the petitioner, on his own, had left the job on 25.1.1990, and that he had not

remained in continuous service for 240 days in any of the calendar years, there was no necessity to

have complied with the requirements of section 25-F of the Act. The stand of the respondent

regarding fresh engagements is that three persons, as named above, had to be reengaged on the

orders of this Court.

8. In his affidavit Ex. PW-1/A, the petitioner (PW-1) has supported the facts as stated in

the petition on all material counts including that on 25.1.1990, his services had been orally

terminated by the concerned SDO. He also stated that in the year, 1996, when he came to know that

fresh persons had been employed by the competent authority, without having given him preference,

he again visited the office of his employer with the request to reengage him but of no avail. The

persons, who had been engaged after his disengagement are S/Shri Ram Lal, Lachi Ram, Dharam

Singh and Ratti Ram. Since, his services had been terminated in violation of the provisions of the

Act, he deserves to be reengaged with all the consequential benefits. Ex. Pw-1/B, is the reply to his

demand notice. Copy of his mandays chart is Ex. PW-1/C. Ex. PW-1/F, is the copy of CWP No.

508 of 2002. Ex. Pw-1/G, is the copy of LPA no. 157 of 2007. In every calendar year, he had

completed 240 days. In the cross-examination, he deniedthat he used to remain absent from duties

and that his services were never terminated. After 25.1.1990, he was not called for job.

9. Shri Sita Ram (PW-2) has stated from the summoned record that Ex. PW-2/A, is the

copy of the mandays chart of the petitioner as per which, he (petitioner) had been engaged on

26.12.1985, on muster roll. When, his services were terminated, neither any notice was issued nor

he was paid compensation. From 26.1.1987 till 25.12.1987, the petitioner had worked for 309 days,

which has also been shown in Ex. PW-1/C. Juniors, to the petitioner, namely Lachhi Ram, Dharam

Singh and Ratti Ram have been regularized. The status of Shri Ram Lal who is also junior to the

petitioner is that of work charge. The department had terminated the services of the petitioner

orally. Ex. PW-1/G, is the copy of the judgment of LPA, which has been filed by the department.

Ex. PW-2/A has been prepared on the basis of muster roll register. Ex. PW-2/B is the mandays

chart upto 1990. In the cross-examination, he stated that as per the summoned record, Hari Singh

(petitioner) had been engaged on 26.12.1985 as beldar on muster roll. Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. PW 1/E,

have not been prepared by him. He denied that no junior to the petitioner has been in service of the

respondent.

712

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 ebZ] 2015@18 oS'kk[k] 1937

10. Shri Vijay Kumar (RW-1) has stated that the petitioner, who had been engaged as daily

waged beldar on 26.3.1986, had worked till 25.1.1990. In no calendar year, he had completed 240

days. The department had not terminated the services of the petitioner who, on his own, had left the

job on 25.1.1990 and thereafter, did not turn up. Since, the petitioner had himself, left the job, there

was no necessity to issue him notice and to pay compensation. The department has not engaged any

person junior to the petitioner. Who-so-ever have been engaged, those were engaged on the orders

of the Court. In the cross-examination, he admitted that after 25.1.1990, the department had

engaged other persons on daily wages. Self-stated that, they had been engaged on the orders of the

Court. He admitted that on 25.1.1990, the services of the petitioner had been terminated, orally. He

further admitted that at present there is work available with the department in Electric Sub Division

Kupvi.

11. From the evidence, which has been referred to above, it is abundantly clear that the

petitioner has failed to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a calendar year preceding his

alleged termination. It has been specifically stated by Shri Vijay Kumar (RW-1), that in no calendar

year, the petitioner had completed 240 days. In my considered view, the petitioner has failed to

prove that he has completed 240 days in a calendar year preceding his termination. To claim benefit

under section 25-F of the Act, it was upon the petitioner to have established that prior to his

termination, he had completed 240 days. It has been held in 2009 (120) FLR 1007 an Civil Appeal

no. 4468 of 2005 of Hon’ble Supreme Court incase titled as Relip Nagarpalika Vs. Babuji Gabhaji

Thakore and others that:

“The burden of proof lies on the workman to show that he had worked continuously for 240

days for the preceding one year and it is for the workman to adduce evidence apart from

examining himself to prove the factum of being in employment of the employer.”

Since, the petitioner has failed to prove that he had worked continuously for 240 days in the

preceding one year from the date of his termination, his alleged termination cannot be said to be in

contravention of the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. The evidence further goes to show that

after 25.1.1990, when the services of the petitioner were terminated, the department has engaged

new persons as named above. If new persons were required to be engaged, the department

concerned was required to call the petitioner to join duties in compliance with the mandatory

provisions of the Act. On the record, there is no such document, which may go to show that when

persons junior to the petitioner were engaged, any notice had been issued to him to join his job.

Since, the petitioner has proved, on record, that persons junior to him, as named above, have been

engaged by the respondent after his termination, his termination w.e.f. 25.1.1990, deserves to be

held as illegal and in violation of the provisions of the Act. It has been held by our own Hon’ble

High Court, incase titled as State of HP & Others V/s Bhatag Ram & Anr. as reported in latest HLJ

2007 (HP) 903. that :—

“Continuing of 240 days is not necessary in 12 calendar months. It is not necessary to

workman to complete 240 days during 12 months for taking the benefits of section 25-G &

25-H of the Act.”

12. The defence version is to this effect that the petitioner, on his own, had left the job but

in support thereof, there is no evidence at all. I may mention that if the petitioner had left the job,

on his own, it was incumbent upon the respondent to have issued him notice to join his duties. No

such document has been brought, on record, which may go to show that any such notice had been

issued to the petitioner.

13. For my above discussion and law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court (supra), I have

no hesitation in holding that the services of the petitioner had been terminated/disengaged, illegally

713

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 ebZ] 2015@18 oS'kk[k] 1937

and in an unjustified manner and that too without complying with the provisions of the Act

especially sections 25-G and 25-H. Accordingly, my answer to this issue is in “Yes”.

Issue no.2

14. The petitioner has claimed his reinstatement with all the consequential service benefits

including back wages. The evidence, on record, goes to show that the services of the petitioner

were terminated, orally, on 25.1.1990 but he pursued his case seriously in the year, 1996 when he

came to know that fresh persons had been given employment by the competent authority. Although,

it is his version that he had kept on going/visiting the concerned office for his reengagement but

there is no cogent evidence, in this regard, on the record,. In case, he had been visiting the

concerned office, he was required to have moved some application for his reengagement. In the

absence of such, I am of the view that only in the year, 1996, the petitioner had taken recourse for

his reengagement. I may mention that only in the year, 1996, he had filed CWP no. 962 of 1996

titled as Hari Singh Vs. HPSEB in the Hon’ble High Court, in which, it had been ordered that he

was to file representation before respondent no.1 which was to be decided within four weeks.

Since, the petitioner has failed to prove that w.e.f. 25.1.1990, till 1996, he had taken steps for his

reengagement, I am of the opinion that he should be ordered to be reengagement from the year,

1996 i.e. w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Accordingly, I order so. As far as grant of back wages to the petitioner are

concerned, I may mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2010 (1) SLJ S.C 70, M/s Ritu

Marbals Vs. Prabhakant Shukla has ruled that “full back wages cannot be granted mechanically,

upon a order of termination be declared illegal. It is further held that reinstatement must not be

accompanied by payment of full back wages even for the period when the workman remained out of

service and contributed little or nothing to the Industry”.

15. Consequently, for what has been stated and observed above, the petitioner is held

entitled to be reinstated in service with seniority and continuity but without back wages w.e.f.

1.1.1996. Thus, my answer to this issue is in “Yes”.

Relief.

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

partly allowed and as such the respondents are directed to reinstate him with seniority and

continuity but without back wages w.e.f. 1.1.1996. 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 March, 2015.

(A.S JASWAL),

Presiding Judge,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla.

_____________

Ref.13/2014

Rakesh Kumar V/s Dagshai Public School, Solan

18/3/2015

Present:- Sh. Niranjan Verma Adv. for the petitioner.

Sh. V.K.Gupta AR for the respondent.

714

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 ebZ] 2015@18 oS'kk[k] 1937

It has been stated by Shri Niranjan Verma, Advocate for the petitioner that already a

compromise has been effected between the parties. He further stated that consequent upon the

compromise, so effected between the parties, the petitioner does not want to proceed with his claim,

arising out of the reference which has been made to this court by the appropriate government,

Since I am satisfied that a lawful compromise has already been effected between parties, I

proceed to record the statement of Sh. Niranjan Verma , Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri V.K.Gupta , AR for the respondent has also admitted the compromise to be correct and

acceptable in terms of the statement made by Shri Niranjan verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

The reference, which has been made to his Court, is as under:—

“Whether termination of the services of Shri Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Hari Nand R/o

Village Anhech, P.O dagshai, Tehsil & District Solan, HP w.e.f. 18.8.2012 who was

employed as Mali-cum Chowkidar by the Employer/Director, Dagshai Public School

Cantt, District Solan, 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 from the above

employer?”

Since, in terms of statement of Shri Niranjan verma, Advocate for the petitioner , a

compromise/ Settlement has already been effected between the parties, which has also been

admitted to be correct and acceptable by Shri V.K.Gupta , AR for the respondent, this reference

which has been made to this Court stands disposed of to have been compromise. The statement of

Shri Niranjan Verma, Advocate for the petitioner shall form part and parcel of this order/ awards.

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

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

Announced

10.03.2015

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour court, Shimla.

______________

Ref.14/2014

Smt Manju Bala V/s Dagshai Public School, Solan

18/3/2015

Present:- Sh. Niranjan Verma Adv. for the petitioner.

Sh. V.K.Gupta AR for the respondent.

It has been stated by Shri Niranjan Verma, Advocate for the petitioner that already a

compromise has been effected between the parties. He further stated that consequent upon the

715

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 ebZ] 2015@18 oS'kk[k] 1937

compromise, so effected between the parties, the petitioner does not want to proceed with his claim,

arising out of the reference which has been made to this court by the appropriate government,

Since I am satisfied that a lawful compromise has already been effected between parties, I

proceed to record the statement of Sh. Niranjan Verma , Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri V.K.Gupta , AR for the respondent has also admitted the compromise to be correct and

acceptable in terms of the statement made by Shri Niranjan verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

The reference, which has been made to his Court, is as under:-

“Whether termination of the services of Shri Smt Manju Bala W/o Sh Rakesh

Kumar R/o Village Anhech, P.O dagshai, Tehsil & District Solan, HP w.e.f. 18.8.2012

who was employed as Peon by the Employer/Director, Dagshai Public School Cantt,

District Solan, 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 from the above

employer?”

Since, in terms of statement of Shri Niranjan verma, Advocate for the petitioner, a

compromise/ Settlement has already been effected between the parties, which has also been

admitted to be correct and acceptable by Shri V.K.Gupta , AR for the respondent, this reference

which has been made to this Court stands disposed of to have been compromise. The statement of

Shri Niranjan Verma, Advocate for the petitioner shall form part and parcel of this order/ awards.

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

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

Announced

10.03.2015

Presiding Judge,

Labour court, Shimla

_____________

LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-171001, the 20^th January, 2015

No. 11-23/84(Lab) ID/2012-Mandi.—Whereas Smt. Babli Devi W/O Shri Sohan Lal, R/O

Village Bahri, P.O. Kot, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. had raised a demand notice dated

01.06.2010 regarding her illegal termination from the services by the Executive Engineer,

H.P.P.W.D. (B&R) Division, Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P. The Labour Officer-cum

Conciliation Officer, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. tried to settle the industrial dispute amicably, but

the same could not be settled during the course of conciliation proceedings, where after he sent a

report under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the undersigned;

And whereas the report sent by the Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, Mandi,

District Mandi, H.P. was considered and examined and undersigned came to the conclusion that

716

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 ebZ] 2015@18 oS'kk[k] 1937

above worker had raised the dispute at a belated stage of more than 10 years and therefore declined

the reference of the dispute vide order dated- 22nd March, 2012;

And whereas Smt. Babli Devi W/O Shri Sohan Lal agitated the above orders of declining of

reference of her industrial dispute to the Ld. Labour Court before the Hon’ble High Court of

Himachal Pradesh vide C.W.P. No. 2261/2014. The Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh has

disposed of the C.W.P. on 18.10.2014 and directed the undersigned to refer the dispute of the above

workman to the Ld. Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal. The operative part of the said judgment

is reproduced as follows:

“4. The question of delay and laches can be seen at the time of moulding the relief by the

Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal.

5. Accordingly, in view of above discussion and analysis the present petition is allowed.

Annexures P-11 to P-20 dated 19.03.2013, 30.03.2012, 17.03.2012, 30.03.2012,

31.03.2012, 15.02.2013, 22.03.2012, 19.03.2013, 16.03.2012 and 16.03.2012,

respectively, are quashed and set aside. Respondent No.-2 is directed make reference

to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal within a period of four weeks from today.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.”

Therefore, in view of above the undersigned while exercising the powers vested by the

Govt. of Himachal Pradesh vide Notification No.: Shram(A) 4-9/2006-IV-Loose, Dated 15^th

February, 2014 and as per power vested under Sub Section-1 of Section 10 of The Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) this industrial dispute is referred to the Labour Court/Industrial

Tribunal Dharamsala, constituted under Section-7 of Act ibid, on the following issue/issues for

legal adjudication:

“Whether the industrial dispute raised by the worker Smt. Babli Devi W/O Shri Sohan

Lal, R/O Village Bahri, P.O. Kot, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. before the Executive

Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. (B&R) Division, Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P. vide demand notice dated

01.06.2010 regarding her alleged illegal termination of service w.e.f. 01.11.1999 suffers from delay

and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Smt. Babli Devi W/O Shri Sohan Lal,

R/O Village Bahri, P.O. Kot, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. by the Executive Engineer,

H.P.P.W.D. (B&R) Division, Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P. w.e.f. 01.11.1999 without

complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as alleged by the worker, is legal

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

the above aggrieved workman is entitled to from the above employer?”

By order,

Sd/-

Deputy Labour Commissioner.

____________

LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-171001, the 20^th January, 2015

No. 11-23/84(Lab) ID/2013-Mandi.—Whereas Smt. Bachani Devi W/O Shri Kalu Ram,

R/O Village Dev Bradta, P.O. Chowk, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. had raised a demand

notice dated 23.02.2011 regarding her illegal termination from the services by the Executive

717

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 ebZ] 2015@18 oS'kk[k] 1937

Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. (B&R) Division, Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P. The Labour Officer-cum

Conciliation Officer, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. tried to settle the industrial dispute amicably, but

the same could not be settled during the course of conciliation proceedings, where after he sent a

report under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the undersigned;/

And whereas the report sent by the Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, Mandi,

District Mandi, H.P. was considered and examined and undersigned came to the conclusion that

above worker had raised the dispute at a belated stage of more than 9 years and therefore declined

the reference of the dispute vide order dated 19th March, 2013;

And whereas Smt. Bachani Devi W/O Shri Kalu Ram agitated the above orders of declining

of reference of her industrial dispute to the Ld. Labour Court before the Hon’ble High Court of

Himachal Pradesh vide C.W.P. No. 2261/2014. The Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh has

disposed of the C.W.P. on 18.10.2014 and directed the undersigned to refer the dispute of the above

workman to the Ld. Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal. The operative part of the said judgment

is reproduced as follows;

4. The question of delay and laches can be seen at the time of moulding the relief by the