jkti=] fgekpy izns'k
fgekpy izns'k jkT; 'kklu }kjk izdkf'kr
eaxyokj] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
fgekpy izns'k ljdkj
LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATION
Shimla, the 23rd November, 2015
No: Sharm (A) 6-3/2014 (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
174&jkti=@2015&08&12&2015 ¼6021½
6022
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
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
1.
113/2007
Shri Bikram Singh V/s M/S Purolater India Ltd
Parwanoo.
26-10-2015
2.
28/2015
Smt. Kamla Devi V/S The Director Elementary
Education Shimla & Others.
16-10-2015
3.
139/2007
Shri Naveen Kumar v/s M/s Himachal Exicom
Commnication, Solan.
07-10-2015
4.
141/2007
Shri Narinder Kumar V/S -do-
07-10—2015
5.
22/2015
Shri Iswar Dass V/S Ex. Engg I&PH Divional
Recong Peo.
16-10-2015
6.
18/2015
Shri Daulat Ram V/S Divisonal Forest Officer,
Renuka.
15-10-2015
7.
58/2010
Shri Krishan Lal V/S State of HP through the Secty
Forest & Others.
16-10-2015
8.
83/2009
Shri Hari Chand V/S –do-
16-10-2015
9.
84/2009
Shri Jai Singh V/S -do-
16-10-2015
10.
85/2009
Shri Satish Kumar V/S –do-
16-10-2015
11.
8/2012
Shri Pancham Ram V/S M/S Forge India Pvt. Ltd.
Parwanoo.
08-10-2015
12.
18/2014
Shri. Ramesh Chand V/S HPPWD & Others.
26-10-2015
By order,
Sd/-
Pr. Secretary ( Lab. & Emp.)
________
Ref.113 of 2007
Sh. Bikram Singh V/s M/s Purolator India Ltd Parwanoo.
26.10.2015:
Present:-
Sh R.K. Khidtta, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for respondent.
The petitioner Shri Bikram Singh has stated that he has settled the matter with the
respondent company and received a payment of Rs.1,10,000/-(Rs. One lac Ten Thousand ) only by
way of cheque no. 001845 dated 24.10.2015 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Branch, Taksal, Parwanoo
as full & final payment in respect of the claim petition and as such the reference petition may be
answered accordingly.
The statement of the petitioner recorded separately.
Heard, Since, the parties have settled the dispute amicably. I am satisfied that a lawful
compromise has been effected between the parties. Therefore, the reference which has been sent by
the appropriate government for adjudication is ordered to be answered accordingly in terms of
statement of petitioner which shall for part and parcel of this order/ award. Let a copy of this
6023
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
order/award be sent to the appropriate government for publication in official gazette. File, after
completion be consigned to records.
Announced:
26.10.2015
Sd/-
Sushil Kukreja,
Presiding Judge,
Labour Court , Shimla.
_________
Ref 28 of 2015
16.10.2015
Smt Kamla Devi V/s Directory Elementry Education Shimla.
16.10.2015
Present:-
Petitioner along with Sh.B,K. Bali Adv.
Sh.Jagdish RajtaLd.ADA for the respondent.
At this stage, vide separate statement recorded today. It has been stated on oath by the
petitioner Smt Kamla Devi that she has been re-engaged as Mid Day Meal workers with effect from
12.6.2015 by the department /SMC (School Management Committee) and as such the reference be
decided/answered accordingly.
Therefore, in view of the statement made by the petitioner on oath. I am satisfied that she
has been re-engaged as Mid Day Meal worker with effect from 12.6.2015 by the respondents and as
such the reference is answered in favour of the petitioner accordingly. The statement of petitioner
Smt Kamla Devi shall form part and parcel of this order/award. Let the 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
16.10.2015
Sushil Kukreja
Presiding Judge,
Labour Court, Shimla.
_________
IN THE COURT OF SUSHIL KUKREJA, PRESIDING JUDGE, HP
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUMLABOUR COURT, SHIMLA.
Ref no. 139 of 2007
Instituted on 12.11.2007.
Decided on 7.10.2015.
Naveen Kumar Thakur S/o Shri Shakti Prasad Thakur, C/o Shri Yashpal Kapoor, Village
Kaleen, Ward No. 13, Tehsil & District Solan, HP.
...Petitioner.
6024
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
VS.
The Vice President (Works) M/s Himachal Exicom Communications Ltd., Chambaghat
Solan, HP.
...Respondent.
Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For petitioner : Shri Bhupinder Pathaniya, Advocate.
For respondent: Shri Rahul Mahajan, Advocate.
AWARD
The reference for adjudication, sent by the appropriate government, is as under:
”Whether the termination of the services of Shri Naveen Kumar Thakur S/o Shri Shakti
Prasad Thakur, Senior Operator by the management of M/s Himachal Exicom
Communications Limited, Chambaghat Solan HP w.e.f. 12.8.2004 after issuing chargesheet
and holding enquiry is commensurate with charges and held to be legal and justified? If
not, what back wages, service benefits and relief the concerned workman/operator is
entitled to?”
2. Facts, in brief are that the petitioner was engaged by the respondent on 30.6.1998 and
his services had been confirmed on 1.7.1999 and thereafter he was promoted on 1.4.2002 as senior
operator. It is asserted that the petitioner was trying to struggle with the management for the
betterment of the workers i.e bonus and increments which was held illegally by the company. It is
further asserted that false allegation qua illegal activities/misconduct with the help of Mr. Hardev
and Miss Sushma Sharma for punishing the petitioner has been imposed because he was trying for
the betterment of the employees and as such the conduct of the employer falls under section 25-T
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as Act) and the employer is indulging in
unfair labour practice. On 16.4.2004, the petitioner received a letter from the company demanding
written report wrongly and illegally whereas nothing had happened with the Hardev (co-worker).
The company had also issued suspension letter dated 16.4.2004, which was duly replied by him.
Thereafter, another show cause-cum-chargesheet dated 8.5.2004, had been issued to the petitioner
illegally wherein charge no.3 was imposed without giving the show cause notice or any copy of
complaint. Since, the petitioner was trying to struggle for the betterment of the workers, he cannot
be punished/penalized on the basis of false and frivolous complaint. It is further asserted that the
enquiry officer had not conducted the enquiry in a fair manner and the enquiry report was one-sided
and directly favours the employer/management. All the witnesses who were examined by the
employer, during enquiry, their statements are different from each other and even the statement of
complainant Mr. Hardev is not corroborated from the statement of the witnesses. The copy of
complaint and other documents had not been supplied to the petitioner, which should have been
supplied to him at the time of issuance of show cause notice or before framing charge sheet. It is
further asserted that an additional charge, in the chargesheet, had also been incorporated which is
totally false and without any basis. The allegations imposed upon the petitioner are totally wrong,
false and is a result of conspiracy. The alleged enquiry report is one sided and not based on the
facts and circumstances or evidence on record. The petitioner has never been indulged in any type
of illegal activities. Against this back-drop, the petitioner prayed for reinstatement with all the
consequential service benefits including full back-wages.
3. The petition has been contested on having raised preliminary objections qua
maintainability and that the petitioner is gainfully employed. On merits, it has been asserted that the
6025
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
services of the petitioner had been terminated after conducting a fair and proper enquiry, which was
conducted by the enquiry officer as per the standing orders, principles of natural justice and fair
hearing. The petitioner indulged in act of major misconduct and the punishment of termination of
service after conducting just and fair domestic enquiry was commensurate with the misconduct. It
is further asserted that chargesheet dated 8.5.2004 was served upon the petitioner. On the first date
of enquiry, the entire procedure was explained to the petitioner as well as the management
representative. Since, the reply submitted by the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory, hence,
the management decided to conduct the domestic enquiry and sufficient opportunities were given to
the petitioner to put forth his case in the enquiry proceedings and the entire documents were
supplied to him. Since, the petitioner had indulged in act of riotous behavior, assaulted and inflicted
injury, out-raged the modesty of female employee and threatened the co-workmen while on duty,
hence, the respondent has every right to issue show cause notice against the petitioner. The charges
levelled in the chargesheet dated 8.5.2004, were on the basis of complaints made by Mr. Hardev
Thakur and Sushma Sharma, which were duly proved during the enquiry proceedings and the
copies were also provided to the petitioner. It is also asserted that the petitioner had been given all
the opportunities to examine the witnesses. The petitioner participated in each and every date of
enquiry, and signed the enquiry proceedings. Thereafter, a show cause notice along-with enquiry
report had been given to him before terminating his services. The enquiry officer was an impartial
person, who conducted the enquiry in just, proper and fair manner. The respondent at no point of
time indulged in any unfair labour practice. Hence, prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
4. By filing rejoinder, the petitioner reaffirmed own allegations by denying those of the
respondent.
5. It is pointed-out here that initially the issues, in this case, have been framed on
31.12.2009 but on 15.7.2010, an application under order 14 rule 5 read-with section 151 CPC for
amending/recasting of issues was filed on behalf of the respondent which was allowed vide order
dated 21.9.2010 and on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 21.9.2010.
1. Whether the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 12.8.2004, have been terminated without
holding proper and fair domestic enquiry as per the principles of natural justice as
alleged?
...OPP.
2. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, to what relief of service benefits the petitioner is
entitled to?
...OPP.
3. Whether the petition is neither competent nor maintainable?
...OPR.
4. 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 No.
Issue no. 2 Becomes redundant.
Issue no. 3 No.
Relief.
Reference answered against the petitioner and in favour of the
respondent per operative part of award.
6026
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
Reasons for findings.
Issue no.1
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued with vehemence that the services of the
petitioner had been terminated on the basis of false and frivolous complaints made by Shri Hardev
Thakur and Ms. Sushma Sharma without following the procedure of law. He further contended that
the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was not proper and fair and the enquiry officer
submitted his report without verifying the facts and circumstances of the case, who adopted the hire
and fire formula during the enquiry as neither the petitioner was afforded proper opportunities nor
the documents were supplied to him on which the suspension letter and show cause notice were
issued.
9. On the other hand, Learned counsel for respondent contended that on the basis of fair
and proper enquiry, the services of the petitioner had been terminated. The enquiry officer has
explained all the procedure to the petitioner on the date of enquiry. Since, the petitioner had
indulged in a serious misconduct, his services have been terminated in accordance with law. The
learned counsel further contended that the petitioner was afforded all the opportunities to defend
himself during the enquiry and all the documents were also supplied to him. He was also afforded
full opportunity to lead evidence in his support and to cross-examine the witnesses of the
management.
10. The petitioner has appeared into the witness box as PW-1, to depose that he was
engaged as an operator by the respondent on 1.7.1998. Initially he was appointed as trainee
operator and he was made as regular operator on 1.1.1999 and thereafter he was promoted as senior
operator on 1.4.2002. On 12.4.2004, Shri Hardev co-worker made an allegation against him
regarding quarrel with him. On 16.4.2004, show cause notice was served upon him and he was
placed under suspension and then domestic enquiry was conducted against him. Ms. Sushma
Sharma co-worker also leveled allegation against him for outraging her modesty upon which he
was served with show cause notice and domestic enquiry against this charge was conducted against
him. No FIR was lodged against him by Ms. Sushma Sharma with the Police. No proper enquiry
had been conducted against him and he was wrongly terminated from service by the respondent. In
the cross-examination, he admitted that show cause notice-cum-chargesheet dated 8.5.2004 along-
with its Hindi translation Ex. RA1 and Ex. RA2 had been received by him. He replied to the show
cause notice, Ex. RA3. He admitted that he had filed reply dated 18.5.2004, Ex. RA4. He further
admitted that regarding initiation of enquiry he was informed by the respondent vide letter Ex. RA5
and enquiry officer was appointed vide letter Ex. RA6. He also admitted that he received intimation
given by the enquiry officer for proceedings of enquiry vide letter Ex. RA7. He admitted that he
participated in them entire proceedings of the enquiry and also signed each and every document of
the enquiry proceedings Ex. RA8. He also admitted that he was made to understand as per standing
orders that he could engage any coworker as his defence assistant. He further admitted that he
cross-examined all the witnesses of the management and also examined his own witnesses in
defence. He admitted that he was given second show cause notice dated 31.7.2004 along-with
enquiry report dated 26.7.2004, Ex. RA9 and he replied the second show cause notice vide Ex.
RA10. He admitted that the charges were proved against him and on the basis of enquiry report and
after considering his reply he was terminated from service. He admitted that he was given full
opportunity to defend his case.
11. To rebut the case of the petitioner, the respondent examined Smt. Anuradha Jamwal,
Personnel Officer, as RW-1, who tendered her affidavit Ex. RW-1/A, in examination-in-chief. She
also tendered her authority letter Ex. RW-1/B and standing order Ex. RW-1/C. In the
6027
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
crossexamination, she admitted that the petitioner was promoted as senior operator on 1.4.2002 in
appreciation of his performance. She admitted that an additional charge of outraging the modesty of
Smt. Sushma Sharma had been framed in show cause-cum-chargesheet Ex. RA-1. She further
admitted that the complaint of Shri Hardev Sharma had been forwarded to the Police by the
respondent and the complaint made by Smt Sushma Sharma had not been forwarded to the Police
by the respondent. She denied that the complaint made by Smt. Sushma Sharma was a procured
complaint under the influence of management.
12. RW-2, Shri Ramnik Sharma, enquiry officer, has stated that he was appointed as
enquiry officer by the respondent company to conduct a joint enquiry against Naveen Kumar and
Narender Kumar as per letter Ex. RW-2/A. Vide letter Ex. RA-6, he entered enquiry and intimated
the date to petitioner and on the first date of enquiry he had asked the petitioner whether copy of
chargesheet and standing orders had been received by him to which he replied that the same had
already been supplied to him. The copy of day to day enquiry proceedings is Ex. RA-8. He
explained the procedure of the enquiry to the petitioner. On 26.7.2004, he submitted the enquiry
report Ex. RA-9 and the charges as leveled vide chargesheet against the worker were duly proved
during enquiry. He conducted the enquiry as per the principles of natural justice and fair hearing
and day to day enquiry proceedings were given/supplied to the petitioner on which he (petitioner)
had also appended his signatures, on order sheets. In the crossexamination, he stated that he had
gone through all the chargesheets and documents of these two cases after his appointment as
enquiry officer. He denied that his enquiry report is totally biased against the worker.
13. I have closely scrutinized the entire evidence, on record, and from the closer scrutiny
thereof it has become clear that initially the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis as trainee
operator and his services had been regularized w.e.f. 1.1.1999, as operator. Thereafter, the
petitioner was promoted as senior operator w.e.f. 1.4.2002. It is also the admitted case of the parties
that the services of the petitioner had been terminated after the enquiry was conducted against him.
14. The only plea which has been taken by the petitioner is that the enquiry conducted by
the enquiry officer was not fair as the principles of natural justice were not complied with and the
enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law as such the enquiry report is liable to be set
aside. Now, the first question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the
enquiry against the petitioner has been conducted in a manner inconsistent with the principles of
natural justice or the same has not been conducted in accordance with law.
15. It is by now well settled that the Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not
act as an Appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence led in the domestic enquiry. The Court will
not interfere with the findings of the fact recorded in departmental enquiry except where such
findings are based on no evidence or they are clearly perverse. The Court will however interfere
with the findings, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the
order is found to be arbitrary, malafide or based upon extraneous considerations. In (1995) 6 SCC
749, titled as B.C Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held
as under:
“12…………..The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as
appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent
findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held
the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules
of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or
where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no
evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever
6028
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and
mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
16. However, in the present case the plea of the petitioner that enquiry has not been
conducted in accordance with law or the principles of natural justice were not complied with cannot
be accepted in the light of the overwhelming evidence on record led by the respondent. As per the
statement of RW-1, Smt. Anuradha Jamwal, Personnel Officer, the respondent issued a show cause
notice-cumchargesheetdated 8.5.2004, in English and Hindi which was duly received by the
petitioner wherein charges of intimidation and threatening of a co-worker, indulging in riotous,
disordering behavior and indulging in the activity of eve-teasing and out raging the modesty of a
female employee, were leveled against him. She further deposed that reply to the chargesheet was
filed by the petitioner and being dissatisfied with the reply, the respondent decided to conduct a
domestic enquiry and Mr. Ramneek Sharma was appointed as an enquiry officer.
17. RW-2, Shri Ramneek Sharma, the enquiry officer specifically deposed that he
intimated the date of enquiry to the petitioner as well as the respondent and on the first date of
enquiry he had asked the petitioner as to whether he had received the copy of chargesheet and
standing orders to which the petitioner told him that he had already been supplied all these
documents. He further deposed that the procedure of enquiry was explained to the petitioner and
even the standing orders of the respondent company were read over and explained to the petitioner.
He also deposed that thereafter on different dates he had examined the witnesses of both the parties
and the copies of the statements of the witnesses so recorded, were handed-over to the petitioner
and to this effect his signatures were also obtained. He further deposed that on each statement of
the witnesses, he obtained the signatures of delinquent/petitioner and thereafter he submitted the
enquiry report dated 26.7.2004, Ex. RA-9. He also deposed that the enquiry had been conducted as
per the natural justice and fair hearing and the charges as leveled vide chargesheet against the
petitioner were duly proved in the enquiry. Both the witnesses were cross-examined at length by
the petitioner, however, nothing favourable could be elicited from their lengthy cross-examination.
Moreover, in his cross-examination, the petitioner himself admitted that he had received show
cause notice-cum-chargesheet dated 8.5.2004 along-with its Hindi translation and also replied to
the show cause notice. He also admitted that he was informed by the respondent that they were not
satisfied with his reply and as such they initiate enquiry against him vide letter Ex. RA-5. He
further admitted that he participated in the entire proceedings of enquiry and also signed each and
every document of enquiry. He also admitted that he was made to understand that as per standing
order he could engage any co-worker as his defence assistant and despite knowing the same he did
not engage any defence assistant. He further admitted that he cross-examined all the witnesses of
management and also examined his own witnesses in defence. He further admitted that the charges
stood proved against him in the enquiry and on the basis of enquiry report and after considering his
reply he was terminated from service and that he was given full opportunity to defend his case.
18. Hence, from the perusal of the statements of RW-1 and RW-2, coupled with the cross-
examination of the petitioner, it stands duly proved on record that the petitioner had participated in
the enquiry and signed the proceedings on each and every date and a reasonable opportunity was
given to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses of the management as well as to bring his
own witnesses in defence. From the perusal of the record, it cannot be said that the principles of
natural justice were not complied with or no proper opportunity of being heard was afforded to the
petitioner. It also cannot be said that the enquiry officer was biased in any manner. I have also
perused the enquiry report Ex. RA-9 minutely and did not find anything wrong with it. There is no
reason to disbelieve the enquiry report. The charges of misconduct leveled vide chargesheets dated
8.5.2004, Ex. RA-1, stood duly proved against the petitioner.
19. Now, the next question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to
whether the punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct
6029
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
or is not commensurate with the charges proved against the petitioner. In (2005) 3 SCC 134 titled
as Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. N.B Narawade, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that
after introduction of section 11-A in the Act, certain amount of discretion is vested with the Labour
Court/Industrial Tribunal in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the
management where the concerned workman is found guilty of misconduct but this discretion is
certainly not unlimited and has to be exercised judiciously. The relevant portion of the aforesaid
ruling reads as under:
“20. It is no doubt true that after introduction of Section 11-A in the Industrial
Disputes Act, certain amount of discretion is vested with the labour court/Industrial
Tribunal in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the Management
where the concerned workman is found guilty of misconduct. The said area of
discretion has been very well defined by the various judgments of this Court referred
to herein above and it is certainly not unlimited as has been observed by the Division
Bench of the High Court. The discretion which can be exercised under Section 11-A is
available only on the existence of certain factors like punishment being
disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the conscience of the
court, or the existence of any mitigating circumstances which requires the reduction of
the sentence, or the past conduct of the workman which may persuade the Labour
Court to reduce the punishment. In the absence of any such factor existing, the Labour
Court can not by way of sympathy alone exercise the power under Section 11-A of the
Act and reduce the punishment.”
20. In the case in hand the petitioner has been found guilty of physically assaulting and
injuring his co-worker and also sexually harassing his woman co-worker at work place which
amounts to misconduct and consequently he was terminated/dismissed from service. In (2005) 3
SCC 401 titled as M.P Electricity Board Vs. Jagdish Chandra Sharma, it has been held by the
Hon’ble Apex Court that where an employee assaulted and injured his superior officer at the work
place, in the presence of other employees, the act amounted to breach of indiscipline in the
organization and in such case the punishment of dismissal cannot be termed unduly harsh or
disproportionate. The relevant portion of the aforesaid ruling reads as under:
“9……….. Obviously this idea is more relevant in considering the working of an
organization like the employer herein or an industrial undertaking. Obedience to
authority in a workplace is not slavery. It is not violative of one's natural rights. It is
essential for the prosperity of the organization as well as that of its employees. When
in such a situation, a punishment of termination is awarded for hitting and injuring a
superior officer supervising the work of the employee, with no extenuating
circumstance established, it cannot be said to be not justified. It cannot certainly be
termed unduly harsh or disproportionate. The Labour Court and the High Court in
this case totally misdirected themselves while exercising their jurisdiction. The
Industrial Court made the correct approach and came to the right conclusion.”
21. In (1991) 1 SCC 759, titled as Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K
Chopra, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that sexual harassment at work place of
female employee resulted in violation of the fundamental rights to gender equality and the right of
life and liberty which needs to be eliminated and there can be no compromise with such violation.
Relevant portion of the aforesaid ruling reads as under:
“26. There is no gainsaying that each incident of sexual harassment, at the place of
work, results in violation of the Fundamental Right to Gender Equality and the Right
to Life and Liberty the two most precious Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the
6030
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
Constitution of India.……………………..That sexual harassment of a female at the
place of work is incompatible with the dignity and honour of a female and needs to be
eliminated and that there can be no compromise with such violations, admits of no
debate.
28……………… There was no justification for the High Court to interfere with the
punishment imposed by the departmental authorities. The act of the respondent was
unbecoming of good conduct and behaviour expected from a superior officer and
undoubtedly amounted to sexual harassment of Miss X and the punishment imposed
by the appellant, was, thus, commensurate with the gravity of his objectionable
behaviour and did not warrant any interference by the High Court in exercise of its
power of judicial review”.
22. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgments and also in view of the facts and
circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner
is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct or is not commensurate with the charges proved
against the petitioner as such the same does not call for any interference by this Court. Thus, it can
safely be concluded that the services of the petitioner have not been illegally terminated by the
respondent, who was rightly chargesheeted in accordance with law and was afforded full
opportunity to defend himself before enquiry officer and after the conclusion of enquiry, the
petitioner was found guilty of misconduct and consequently he was terminated/dismissed from
service and therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that his services have been
terminated without holding proper and fair domestic enquiry as per the principles of natural justice.
Accordingly, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner.
Issue No. 2
23. Since, the petitioner has failed to prove issue no.1, this issue becomes redundant.
Issue No.3.
24. In support of this issue, no evidence was led by the respondent. However, I find
nothing wrong with this petition which is perfectly maintainable in the present form. Hence, this
issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
Relief.
As a sequel to my findings on the aforesaid issues, the claim of the petitioner is dismissed.
Consequently, the reference stands answered against the petitioner and in favour of 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 7th October, 2015.
(Parveen)
(Sushil Kukreja),
Presiding Judge,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Shimla.
6031
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
IN THE COURT OF SUSHIL KUKREJA, PRESIDING JUDGE, HP INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUMLABOUR COURT, SHIMLA
Ref No. 141 of 2007
Instituted on 12.11.2007.
Decided on 7.10.2015.
Narender Kumar S/o Shri Puran Chand R/o Village Kaleen, Ward No. 13, House No. 121,
Tehsil & District Solan, HP.
...Petitioner.
VS.
The Vice President (Works) M/s Himachal Exicom Communications Ltd., Chambaghat
Solan, HP.
...Respondent.
Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For petitioner : Shri Bhupinder Pathaniya, Advocate.
For respondent : Shri Rahul Mahajan, Advocate.
AWARD
The reference for adjudication, sent by the appropriate government, is as under:
”Whether the termination of the services of Shri Narinder Kumar S/o Shri Puran Chand,
Senior Operator by the management of M/s Himachal Exicom Communications Limited,
Chambaghat Solan HP w.e.f. 14.8.2004 after issuing chargesheet and holdingenquiry is
commensurate with charges and held to be legal and justified? If not, what back wages,
service benefits and relief the concerned workman/operator is entitled to?”
2. Facts, in brief are that the petitioner was engaged by the respondent on 30.11.1999 and
his services had been confirmed on 1.10.2000 and thereafter he was promoted on 1.4.2003 as senior
operator. It is asserted that the petitioner was trying to struggle with the management for the
betterment of the workers i.e bonus and increments which was held illegally by the company. It is
further asserted thatfalse allegation qua illegal activities/misconduct with the help of Mr. Hardev
and Miss Sushma Sharma for punishing the petitioner has been imposed because he was trying for
the betterment of the employees and as such the conduct of the employer falls under section 25-T
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as Act) and the employer is indulging in
unfair labour practice. On 16.4.2004, the petitioner received a letter from the company demanding
written report wrongly and illegally whereas nothing had happened with the Hardev (co-worker).
The company had also issued suspension letter dated 16.4.2004, which was duly replied by him.
Thereafter, another show cause-cum-chargesheet dated 8.5.2004, had been issued to the petitioner
illegally wherein charge no.3 was imposed without giving the show cause notice or any copy of
complaint. Since, the petitioner was trying to struggle for the betterment of the workers, he cannot
be punished/penalized on the basis of false and frivolous complaint. It is further asserted that the
enquiry officer had not conducted the enquiry in a fair manner and the enquiry report was one-sided
and directly favours the employer/management. All the witness as who were examined by the
employer, during enquiry, their statements are different from each other and even the statement of
complainant Mr. Hardev is not corroborated from the statement of the witnesses. The copy of
complaint and other documents had not been supplied to the petitioner, which should be supplied to
6032
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
him at the time of issuance of show cause notice or before framing charge sheet. It is further
asserted that an additional charge, in the chargesheet, had also been incorporated which is totally
false and without any basis. The allegations imposed upon the petitioner are totally wrong, false
and is a result of conspiracy. The alleged enquiry report is one sided and not based on the facts and
circumstances or evidence on record. The petitioner has never been indulged in any type of illegal
activities. Against this back-drop, the petitioner prayed for reinstatement with all the consequential
service benefits including full back-wages.
3. The petition has been contested on having raised preliminary objections qua
maintainability and that the petitioner is gainfully employed. On merits, it has been asserted that the
services of the petitioner had been terminated after conducting a fair and proper enquiry, which was
conducted by the enquiry officer as per the standing orders, principles of natural justice and fair
hearing. The petitioner indulged in act of major misconduct and the punishment of termination of
service after conducting just and fair domestic enquiry was commensurate with the misconduct. It
is further asserted that chargesheet dated 8.5.2004 was served upon the petitioner. On the first date
of enquiry, the entire procedure was explained to the petitioner as well as the management
representative. Since, the reply submitted by the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory, hence,
the management decided to conduct the domestic enquiry and sufficient opportunities were given to
the petitioner to put forth his case in the enquiry proceedings and the entire documents were
supplied to him. Since, the petitioner had indulged in act of riotous behavior, assaulted and inflicted
injury, out-raged the modesty of female employee and threatened the co-workmen while on duty,
hence, the respondent has every right to issue show cause notice against the petitioner. The charges
levelled in the chargesheet dated 8.5.2004, were on the basis of complaints made by Mr. Hardev
Thakur and Sushma Sharma, which were duly produced during the enquiry proceedings and the
copies were also provided to the petitioner. It is also asserted that the petitioner had been given all
the opportunities to examine the witnesses. The petitioner participated in each and every date of
enquiry, and signed the enquiry proceedings. Thereafter, a show cause notice along-with enquiry
report had been given to him before terminating his services. The enquiry officer was an impartial
person, who conducted the enquiry in just, proper and fair manner. The respondent at no point of
time indulged in any unfair labour practice. Hence, prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
4. By filing rejoinder, the petitioner reaffirmed own allegations by denying those of the
respondent.
5. It is pointed-out here that initially the issues, in this case, have been framed on
31.12.2009 but on 15.7.2010, an application under order 14 rule 5 read-with section 151 CPC for
amending/recasting of issues was filed on behalf of the respondent which was allowed vide order
dated 21.9.2010 and on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 21.9.2010.
1. Whether the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 12.8.2004, have been terminated without
holding proper and fair domestic enquiry as per the principles of natural justice as
alleged?
...OPP.
2. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, to what relief of service benefits the petitioner is
entitled to?
...OPP.
3. Whether the petition is neither competent nor maintainable?
...OPR.
4. Relief.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record
of the case carefully.
6033
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
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 No.
Issue no. 2 Becomes redundant.
Issue no. 3 No.
Relief.
Reference answered against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent per
operative part of award.
Reasons for findings
Issue no. 1
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued with vehemence that the services of the
petitioner had been terminated on the basis of false and frivolous complaints made by Shri Hardev
Thakur and Ms. Sushma Sharma without following the procedure of law. He further contended that
the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was not proper and fair and the enquiry officer
submitted his report without verifying the facts and circumstances of the case, who adopted the hire
and fire formula during the enquiry as neither the petitioner was afforded proper opportunities nor
the documents were supplied to him on which the suspension letter and show cause notice were
issued.
9. On the other hand, Learned counsel for respondent contended that on the basis of fair
and proper enquiry, the services of the petitioner had been terminated. The enquiry officer has
explained all the procedure to the petitioner on the date of enquiry. Since, the petitioner had
indulged in a serious misconduct, his services have been terminated in accordance with law. The
learned counsel further contended that the petitioner was afforded all the opportunities to defend
himself during the enquiry and all the documents were also supplied to him. He was also afforded
full opportunity to lead evidence in his support and to cross-examine the witnesses of the
management.
10. The petitioner has appeared into the witness box as PW-1, and tendered his affidavit in
examination-in-chief, wherein he supported all the material facts as stated in the petition including
that vide letter dated 10.7.1998, he was called for interview by the respondent for the post of
training operator and vide letter dated 30.11.1999, he was engaged on temporary basis as operator
and thereafter his services had been regularized w.e.f. 1.4.2000 and his services were confirmed on
1.10.2000. W.e.f 1.4.2003, he was promoted as senior operator. On 12.4.2004, he was issued
misconduct letter and suspension letter which were duly replied by him on 17.4.2004 and also
asked the management to communicate with him in Hindi. On 8.5.2004, a show cause-cum-
chargesheet was issued to him, wherein one new and very heinous charge of outraging the modesty
of the women co-worker was also added. On 12.5.2004, he had been supplied the chargesheet in
Hindi, which was duly replied by him. Thereafter, without considering his replies, on 19.5.2004,
the respondent management had appointed enquiry officer to conduct the one sided enquiry with a
preset mind to terminate his services. His request for assistance of one Shri Jagdish Bhardwaj, had
been turned down by the respondent. During enquiry, no fair trial was afforded to him. He joined
the enquiry under protest and even during enquiry the copies of allegations and statements of any of
the witness were not provided to him. The enquiry proceedings were concluded and one sided
report was issued against him wherein all the charges leveled against him have been said to be
proved. After the conclusion of enquiry, he was served with second show cause notice dated
31.7.2004, which was duly replied but due to the adamant attitude of the respondent, his services
had been terminated vide order dated 12.8.2004. The petitioner also tendered documents Ex. P-1 to
6034
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
Ex. P-24. In the crossexamination, he admitted that suspension letter Ex. R-1, letter Ex. R-2 dated
16.4.2004 and Chargesheets Ex. R-3 & Ex. R-4, were received by him and he also replied the same
vide Ex. R-5 and Ex. R-6. He further admitted that letter Ex. R-7 regarding conducting of domestic
enquiry had also been received by him and Shri Ramneek Sharma was appointed as enquiry officer,
who intimated him about the date of enquiry. He also admitted that the enquiry officer had
explained the entire procedure on the first date of enquiry but stated that documents were not
supplied to him. He admitted that he participated in the enquiry and cross-examined the
management witnesses and also signed each enquiry proceedings, copy of which is Ex. R-9. In his
evidence before enquiry officer, he examined Shri Naveen Kumar. He admitted that second show
cause notice Ex. R-10 along-with enquiry report Ex. R-11 had been received by him. He also
admitted that vide letter Ex. P-19, he was told by the management that he was entitled to be assisted
by any co-worker as per standing orders. He admitted that no complaint has been made by him in
writing to the effect that enquiry officer was conducting one sided enquiry. He admitted that
complaint Ex. R-12 hadbeen made by Shri Hardev Thakur against him. He denied to have been
afforded full opportunity to defend himself during enquiry.
11. To rebut the case of the petitioner, the respondent examined Smt. Anuradha Jamwal,
Personnel Officer, as RW-1, who tendered her affidavit Ex. RW-1/A, in examination-in-chief. She
also tendered her authority letter Ex. RW-1/B and standing order Ex. RW-1/C. Ex. RW-1/D, is the
letter dated 19.5.2004, regarding appointment of enquiry officer. Vide Ex. R-9, Shri Sanjay Kumar,
the than Assistant Manager, had been appointed as management representative in the enquiry
proceedings. In the cross-examination, she admitted that vide letter Ex. P-5, the petitioner was
promoted in appreciation of his performance and letters Ex. P-6 & Ex. P-7 were also issued by the
company through Vice President (works). She admitted that in Ex. P-6 & Ex. P-7, there is only
mention regarding the beatings of Mr. Hardev Sharma. She further admitted that in Ex. P-11, an
additional charge of outraging the modesty of Smt. Sushma Sharma had been framed. She further
admitted that the complaint of Shri Hardev Sharma had been forwarded to the Police by the
respondent and the complaint made by Smt Sushma Sharma had not been forwarded to the Police
by the respondent. She denied that the complaint made by Smt. Sushma Sharma was a procured
complaint under the influence of management.
12. RW-2, Shri Ramnik Sharma, enquiry officer, has stated that he was appointed as
enquiry officer by the respondent company to conduct a joint enquiry against Naveen Kumar and
Narender Kumar as per letter Ex. RW/D. Vide letters Ex. RW-2/A and Ex. RW-2/B, he intimated
the date of enquiry to the petitioner as well as respondent and on the first date of enquiry he had
asked the petitioner whether copy of chargesheet and standing orders had been received by him to
which he replied that the same had already been supplied to him. The copy of day to day enquiry
proceedings is Ex. R-9. He explained the procedure of the enquiry to the petitioner. On 26.7.2004,
he submitted the enquiry report Ex. RA-11 and the charges as leveled vide chargesheet against the
worker were duly proved during enquiry. He conducted the enquiry as per the principles of natural
justice and fair hearing and day to day enquiry proceedings were given/supplied to the petitioner on
which he (petitioner) had also appended his signatures, on order sheets. In the cross-examination,
he stated that he had gone through all the chargesheets and documents of these two cases after his
appointment as enquiry officer. He denied that his enquiry report is totally biased against the
worker.
13. I have closely scrutinized the entire evidence, on record, and from the closer scrutiny
thereof it has become clear that initially the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis as trainee
operator vide appointment letter Ex. P-2, and his services had been regularized w.e.f. 1.4.2000, as
operator, vide letter Ex. P-3. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner had been confirmed as
operator w.e.f. 1.10.2000, vide Ex. P-H and he was promoted as senior operator w.e.f. 1.4.2003
6035
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
vide Ex. P-5. It is also the admitted case of the parties that the services of the petitioner had been
terminated after the enquiry was conducted against him.
14. The only plea which has been taken by the petitioner is that the enquiry conducted by
the enquiry officer was not fair as the principles of natural justice were not complied with and the
enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law as such the enquiry report is liable to be set
aside. Now, the first question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the
enquiry against the petitioner has been conducted in a manner inconsistent with the principles of
natural justice or the same has not been conducted in accordance with law.
15. It is by now well settled that the Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not
act as an Appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence led in the domestic enquiry. The Court will
not interfere with the findings of the fact recorded in departmental enquiry except where such
findings are based on no evidence or they are clearly perverse. The Court will however interfere
with the findings, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the
order is found to be arbitrary, malafide or based upon extraneous considerations. In (1995) 6 SCC
749, titled as B.C Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held
as under:
“12…………..The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as
appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent
findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held
the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules
of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or
where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no
evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever
reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and
mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
16. However, in the present case the plea of the petitioner that enquiry has not been
conducted in accordance with law or the principles of natural justice were not complied with cannot
be accepted in the light of the overwhelming evidence on record led by the respondent. As per the
statement of RW-1, Smt. Anuradha Jamwal, Personnel Officer, the respondent issued a show cause
notice-cumchargesheet dated 8.5.2004, in English and Hindi which was duly received by the
petitioner wherein charges of intimidation and threatening of a co-worker, indulging in riotous,
disordering behavior and indulging in the activity of eve-teasing and out raging the modesty of a
female employee, were leveled against him. She further deposed that reply to the chargesheet was
filed by the petitioner and being dissatisfied with the reply, the respondent decided to conduct a
domestic enquiry and Mr. Ramneek Sharma was appointed as an enquiry officer.
17. RW-2, Shri Ramneek Sharma, the enquiry officer specifically deposed that he
intimated the date of enquiry to the petitioner as well as the respondent and on the first date of
enquiry he had asked the petitioner as to whether he had received the copy of chargesheet and
standing orders to which the petitioner told him that he had already been supplied all these
documents. He further deposed that the procedure of enquiry was explained to the petitioner and
even the standing orders of the respondent company were read over and explained to the petitioner.
He also deposed that thereafter on different dates he had examined the witnesses of both the parties
and the copies of the statements of the witnesses so recorded, were handed-over to the petitioner
and to this effect his signatures were also obtained. He further deposed that on each statement of
the witnesses, he obtained the signatures of delinquent/petitioner and thereafter he submitted the
enquiry report dated 26.7.2004, Ex. RA-11. He also deposed that the enquiry had been conducted
as per the natural justice and fair hearing and the charges as leveled vide chargesheet against the
6036
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
petitioner were duly proved in the enquiry. Both the witnesses were cross-examined at length by
the petitioner, however, nothing favourable could be elicited from their lengthy cross-examination.
Moreover, in his cross-examination, the petitioner himself admitted that he had received the
chargesheet which was duly replied by him and a letter Ex. R-7 regarding conducting domestic
enquiry was also received by him. He also admitted that the enquiry officer intimated him about the
date of enquiry and he (enquiry officer) explained him the entire procedure of enquiry on the first
date of enquiry. He further admitted that he participated in the enquiry and cross- examined the
management witnesses and had signed each enquiry proceedings. He also admitted that he
examined Shri Naveen Kumar in his evidence before the enquiry officer. He also admitted that he
received second show cause notice along-with enquiry report and complete copy of standing orders.
He further admitted that he was told by the management that he was entitled to be assisted by any
co-worker as per standing orders. He also admitted that he did not make any complaint in writing
that the enquiry officer was conducting one sided enquiry.
18. Hence, from the perusal of the statements of RW-1 and RW-2, coupled with the cross-
examination of the petitioner, it stands duly proved on record that the petitioner had participated in
the enquiry and signed the proceedings on each and every date and a reasonable opportunity was
given to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses of the management as well as to bring his
own witnesses in defence. From the perusal of the record, it cannot be said that the principles of
natural justice were not complied with or no proper opportunity of being heard was afforded to the
petitioner. It also cannot be said that the enquiry officer was biased in any manner. I have also
perused the enquiry report Ex. R-11 minutely and did not find anything wrong with it. There is no
reason to disbelieve the enquiry report. The charges of misconduct leveled vide chargesheets dated
8.5.2004, Ex. R-3 and 12.5.2004, Ex. R-4, stood duly proved against the petitioner.
19. Now, the next question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to
whether the punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct
or is not commensurate with the charges proved against the petitioner. In (2005) 3 SCC 134 titled
as Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. N.B Narawade, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that
after introduction of section 11-A in the Act, certain amount of discretion is vested with the Labour
Court/Industrial Tribunal in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the
management where the concerned workman is found guilty of misconduct but this discretion is
certainly not unlimited and has to be exercised judiciously. The relevant portion of the aforesaid
ruling reads as under:
“20. It is no doubt true that after introduction of Section 11-A in the Industrial
Disputes Act, certain amount of discretion is vested with the labour court/Industrial
Tribunal in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the Management
where the concerned workman is found guilty of misconduct. The said area of
discretion has been very well defined by the various judgments of this Court referred
to herein above and it is certainly not unlimited as has been observed by the Division
Bench of the High Court. The discretion which can be exercised under Section 11-A is
available only on the existence of certain factors like punishment being
disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the conscience of the
court, or the existence of any mitigating circumstances which requires the reduction of
the sentence, or the past conduct of the workman which may persuade the Labour
Court to reduce the punishment. In the absence of any such factor existing, the Labour
Court can not by way of sympathy alone exercise the power under Section 11-A of the
Act and reduce the punishment.”
20. In the case in hand the petitioner has been found guilty of physically assaulting and
injuring his co-worker and also sexually harassing his woman co-worker at work place which
6037
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
amounts to misconduct and consequently he was terminated/dismissed from service. In (2005) 3
SCC 401 titled as M.P Electricity Board Vs. Jagdish Chandra Sharma, it has been held by the
Hon’ble Apex Court that where an employee assaulted and injured his superior officer at the work
place, in the presence of other employees, the act amounted to breach of indiscipline in the
organization and in such case the punishment of dismissal cannot be termed unduly harsh or
disproportionate. The relevant portion of the aforesaid ruling reads as under:
“9……….. Obviously this idea is more relevant in considering the working of an
organization like the employer herein or an industrial undertaking. Obedience to
authority in a workplace is not slavery. It is not violative of one's natural rights. It is
essential for the prosperity of the organization as well as that of its employees. When
in such a situation, a punishment of termination is awarded for hitting and injuring a
superior officer supervising the work of the employee, with no extenuating
circumstance established, it cannot be said to be not justified. It cannot certainly be
termed unduly harsh or disproportionate. The Labour Court and the High Court in
this case totally misdirected themselves while exercising their jurisdiction. The
Industrial Court made the correct approach and came to the right conclusion.”
21. In (1991) 1 SCC 759, titled as Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K
Chopra, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that sexual harassment at work place of
female employee resulted in violation of the fundamental rights to gender equality and the right of
life and liberty which needs to be eliminated and there can be no compromise with such violation.
Relevant portion of the aforesaid ruling reads as under:
“26. There is no gainsaying that each incident of sexual harassment, at the place of
work, results in violation of the Fundamental Right to Gender Equality and the Right
to Life and Liberty the two most precious Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the
Constitution of India.……… ……………..That sexual harassment of a female at the
place of work is incompatible with the dignity and honour of a female and needs to be
eliminated and that there can be no compromise with such violations, admits of no
debate.
28……………… There was no justification for the High Court to interfere with the
punishment imposed by the departmental authorities. The act of the respondent was
unbecoming of good conduct and behaviour expected from a superior officer and
undoubtedly amounted to sexual harassment of Miss X and the punishment imposed
by the appellant, was, thus, commensurate with the gravity of his objectionable
behaviour and did not warrant any interference by the High Court in exercise of its
power of judicial review”.
22. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgments and also in view of the facts and
circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner
is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct or is not commensurate with the charges proved
against the petitioner as such the same does not call for any interference by this Court. Thus, it can
safely be concluded that the services of the petitioner have not been illegally terminated by the
respondent, who was rightly chargesheeted in accordance with law and was afforded full
opportunity to defend himself before enquiry officer and after the conclusion of enquiry, the
petitioner was found guilty of misconduct and consequently he was terminated/dismissed from
service and therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that his services have been
terminated without holding proper and fair domestic enquiry as per the principles of natural justice.
Accordingly, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner.
6038
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
Issue No. 2
23. Since, the petitioner has failed to prove issue no.1, this issue becomes redundant.
Issue No. 3.
24. In support of this issue, no evidence was led by the respondent. However, I find
nothing wrong with this petition which is perfectly maintainable in the present form. Hence, this
issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
Relief.
As a sequel to my findings on the aforesaid issues, the claim of the petitioner is dismissed.
Consequently, the reference stands answered against the petitioner and in favour of 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 7th October, 2015.
By order,
(SUSHIL KUKREJA)
Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Shimla.
________
Ref. 22 of 2015
Sh Ishwar Dass V/s Ex.Engg I&PH Division Reckong Peo
Case called again after lunch.
16.10.2015
Present:
None for the petitioner.
Sh. JagdishRajta ld. ADA for respondent.
It is 2:50 PM. Case called several times in pre and post lunch sessions but none has
appeared on behalf of the petitioner The reference for adjudication sent by the appropriate
government is as under:--
“Whether non-regularization of the services of Sh. IshwarDass S/O Sh. Sanpur, VPO
Chagaon, Tehsil Nichar, Distt. Kinnaur, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, I & PH
Division, Reckongpeo, Distt. Kinnaur, H.P. on completion of 8 years of continuous
services as per policy of H.P. Govt., as alleged by the workman is legal and justified? If
not, what relief of regularization and consequential monetary benefits the aggrieved
workman is entitled to from the employer?”
At the very outset, I would like to point out that the case was called several times during the
pre-lunch session as well as the post-lunch session, however, neither the petitioner nor his counsel
appeared before this court. In these circumstances, this court decided to answer the reference on the
basis of the material, whatsoever, available on the record. No statement of claim has come on
record on the behalf of the petitioner and the respondent also did not file any reply, pursuance to
the reference which has been made by the appropriate government. The petitioner as well as his Ld.
Counsel has also failed to appear before this court despite the case having been called several
6039
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
times.There is no material on record, whatsoever, which may go to substantiate the contention of
the petitioner that on completion of 8 years of continuous service, his services have not been
regularized as per the policy of the H.P. government. Hence, in the absence of any material on
record, this reference deserves to be answered against the petitioner. With these observations, the
reference is answered in the negative. Let the copy of this award be sent to the appropriate
government for publication in the official gazette. File, after completion, be consigned to records.
Announced in the open court today, which is dated 16.10.2015.
Announced:
16.10.2015
By order,
(SUSHILKUKERJA),
Presiding Judge, Labour Court, Shimla.
________
Ref.18 of 2015
Sh Daulat Ram V/s DFO Renuka ,Sirmour.
15.10.2015
Present: Sh. R.K. Khidtta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Sh. Jagdish Rajta, ADA for respondent.
At this stage, an application has been filed by the Ld. Csl, for the petitioner with the
averments that the petitioner has filed the demand notice against the illegal termination of his
services but the same was not referred as reference to this Court within the period of 45 days and as
such the petitioner filed the claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947
(hereinafter referred to as Act) directly, which was allowed vide award/ order dated 2.1.2015. Now,
the appropriate government has sent his case as a reference to this Court. It has further been
submitted that as per the award passed by this Court on his application under section 2-A of the
Act, the applicant has been re-engaged by the respondent w.e.f 26.0.2015 and is presently working
with the respondent.
I have heard the Ld. Csl. for the petitioner and Ld.ADA for the respondent and also gone
through the material on record. As per the averments of the petitioner himself, he has been
reinstated in service by the respondent vide award/order dated 2.1.2015 passed by this Court in
application No-66 of 2012 and after the passing of the award, he has been re-engaged with effect
from 26.9.2015. The application is duly supported with the affidavit of the petitioner. The copy of
the award dated 2.1.2015 as well as the joining report have also been annexed along with the
application.
Therefore, the present reference which has been referred to this court by the appropriate
government on the same cause of action for adjudication is ordered to be answered in favour of the
petitioner in terms of the award/order dated 2.1.2015 passes in application No.66 of 2012. This
order shall form part and parcel of the award/order dated 2.1.2015 passed in application No.66 of
2012 titled as Sh Daulat Ram V/s Divisional Forest Officer and another. 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.
6040
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
Announced:
15.10.2015
By order,
(SUSHIL KUKREJA)
Presiding Judge Labour Court, Shimla.
_________
IN THE COURT OF SUSHIL KUKREJA, PRESIDING JUDGE, HP INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUMLABOUR COURT, SHIMLA
Ref no. 58 of 2010.
Instituted on 1.5.2010.
Decided on 16.10.2015.
Krishan Lal S/o Shri DAulat Ram R/o Village Shallu, P.O Roudi, Tehsil & District Shimla,
HP.
...Petitioner.
VS.
1. The State of Himachal Pradesh through the Secretary Forest with Headquarter at
Shimla.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh Shimla (Talland),
Shimla.
3. The Conservator of Forests (Wild Life) Hiamchal Pradesh with Headquarter at
Hamirpur.
4. The Deputy Conservator of Forest Himachal Pradesh (D.F.O Wild Life), Khalini,
Shimla- 2.
5. The Range Officer, Wild Life, Khalini, Shimla-171002.
...Respondents.
Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For petitioner : Shri Hemant Vaid, Advocate
For respondent : Shri Devender Chandel, ADA.
AWARD
The reference for adjudication, sent by the appropriate government, is as under:--
“Whether the termination of the services of Shri Krishan Lal S/o Shri Daulat Ram by the
Chief Conservator of Forests, Hiamchal Pradesh Shimla-1, ii) the Conservator of
Forests, (Wild Life) Hamirpur, HP w.e.f. 11.2.2000 without complying the provisions of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is proper and justified? If not, what relief of back wages,
service benefits and compensation the above aggrieved workman is entitled to?”
6041
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
2. In nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that in the month of Jan., 1995, he had joined as
daily wage labourer in a wing of the Forest Department known as Environment Conservation
Operation in the wild life Division-4 (hereinafter referred to as ECO) for the work of plantation,
check dam, construction of parks etc. and the salary of the petitioner was drawn from the forest
department. It is stated that the services of the regular employees as well as daily wages labourers
of the ECO were inter transferable with the similar employees of the forest department and several
daily wages labourers had been shifted to the wild life from the ECO department in the last several
years. It is further stated that on 11.2.2000, the forest department and its ECO wing disengaged the
applicant from service and thereafter an OA no. 1538 of 2000 was filed by the petitioner before the
Administrative Tribunal wherein a direction was given to treat the same as representation by the
State of Himachal Pradesh through the Secretary Forest and others. The petitioner appeared before
the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, who dismissed the matter vide common order no. 619
of 2000 on 7.11.2000. Then the petitioner moved another OA no. 690 of 2001 against the aforesaid
order dated 7.11.2000 before the HP Administrative Tribunal, which was disposed of on 3.3.2006
holding that the matter of dispute related to Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as
Act) and it has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. It is further stated that thereafter the petitioner
made a demand before the Labour Officer as required under the Act by issuing a notice but the
conciliation proceedings failed and the matter was referred to this Court for adjudication. The
juniors to the petitioner namely Man Bahadur, Surya Prakash, Jeet Ram, Duni Chand, Jai Kishan,
Ishwar Dass and Bhagat Ram, are still working with the respondent and as such the termination of
the services of the petitioner as daily wages labourers is in violation of the provisions of section 25-
G of the Act. The petitioner had completed more than 240 days in a year and his termination
without serving any show cause notice of one month and without paying retrenchment
compensation is in violation of the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. The services of the
petitioner have been dispensed with by the Range Officer, who was not the appointing authority of
the daily wage workers. Since, his services had been terminated in contravention of the provisions
of the Act, he deserves to be reinstated in service with retrospective effect alongwith all the
consequential benefits.
3. The petition has been contested, on having raised preliminary objections qua
jurisdiction and that the work on which the petitioner was engaged was being carried out
exclusively under Foreign Aided Project called Eco-Development NORAD Project (hereinafter
referred to as Project) and the respondent department was only executing agency. Due to non-
availability of funds, the Project came to a closer and the services of all the daily wagers including
petitioner had been automatically disengaged. On merits, it has been admitted that the petitioner
had been engaged on daily wages basis as per requirement of seasonal work w.e.f. September,
1995, in the Project. It is denied that the petitioner was engaged in Jan., 1995. It is stated that the
Project was a foreign aided project which was being executed by Wild Life Division of Forest
Department and as such the workers deployed in this Project were paid wages from the Project
funds and not by Forest Department. The regular employees working in the Project were deployed
from the forest department for execution of Project work purely on secondment basis and some of
daily wagers, who were disengaged were re-engaged as per orders passed by the Administrative
Tribunal. It is admitted that the representation of petitioner had been rejected by the Principal Chief
Conservator on 7.11.2000. It is admitted that four junior daily wagers namely S/Shri Man Bahadur,
Surya Parkash, Jeet Ram, Ishwar Dass and Dhuni Chand daily wagers had been re-engaged as per
the orders passed by the HP Administrative Tribunal and Shri Bhagat Ram was re-engaged as per
the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court. The respondent prayed for the dismissal of the
petition.
4. Rejoinder not filed. Pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues which
were struck on 2.7.2011.
6042
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
1. Whether the termination of the services of the petitioner by the respondents w.e.f.
11.2.2000 is in violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
...OPP.
2. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, to what relief of service benefits the petitioner is
entitled to?
...OPP.
3. Whether the petition is not maintainable?
...OPR.
4. Relief.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. ADA for respondent 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 Yes
Issue no. 2 Entitled for continuity in service but without back wages.
Issue no. 3 No.
Relief.
Reference answered in favour of the petitioner, per operative part of award.
Reasons for findings
Issue no.1
8.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended the services of the petitioner had been
terminated illegally without serving any notice under section 25-F of the Act. Learned counsel
further contended that the petitioner had completed more than 240 working days in each calendar
year and his juniors are still working with the department.
9. On the other hand, Ld. ADA appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the
services of the petitioner had been engaged in ECO Project which was a foreign aided project and
due to non-availability of funds, the Project was closed and as such the services of the petitioner
stood automatically disengaged with the closer of the Project. He further contended that the juniors,
had only been re-engaged as per the orders of the Courts.
10. Shri Satish Kumar, Forest Guard, has appeared into the witness box as PW-1 to depose
that the petitioner had been engaged as daily wage seasonal worker on 1.3.1995 in ECO Project and
no appointment letter had been issued to him. The copy of mandays chart of the petitioner is Ex.
PW-1/A. Due to closer of the Project the services of the petitioner had been terminated along-with
six other workers. Before terminating the services of the petitioner, he had completed more than
240 days. Similar situated person Shri Surya Prakash was engaged on 16.8.1996, whose services
had now been regularized. Similarly, Jeet Ram, Duni Chand, Bhagat Ram, Prem Kumar and Om
Prakesh had been engaged in ECO Project on 1.5.1996, 1.9.1997, 1.1.1995, 1.7.1995 and 1.11.1996
respectively, who were also disengaged on the completion of Project but on the orders of the Court,
all the aforesaid workers had been regularized. In the cross-examination, he has stated that the ECO
Project was started in the year, 1994 and closed on 31.3.2000 and the services of the petitioner had
been engaged only for seasonal work of ECO Project. He stated that all the aforesaid workers had
been re-engaged on the orders of the Courts.
11. Petitioner Shri Krishan Lal appeared into the witness box as PW-2 and tendered his
affidavit Ex. PA in evidence, wherein he supported all the material facts as stated in the claim
petition. He also tendered in evidence the certified copy of reference no. 199 of 2003, Ex. PA-1.
6043
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
Ex. PA-2, is the certified copy of order passed in OA no. 690 of 2001. The copy of order passed in
CWP no. 3557 of 2009 is Ex. PA-3 and the copy of order dated 7.11.2000 passed by Principal
Chief Conservator of Forests, along-with detail of attendance is Ex. P-4. In crossexamination, he
denied that he was engaged in ECO Project in September, 1995 but explained that he was engaged
in Jan., 1995. He denied that in the year, 1996, he left the job on his own. He admitted that he was
working as daily waged labourer with the department. He further admitted that the regular staff was
also employed in the Project which was deployed from the forest department. He denied that the
Project was not of the Forest Department. He denied that after the closer of the Project, his juniors
were not retained by the department. He admitted that he was engaged as daily wager by the forest
department under the muster roll which were issued by the Range Officer.
12. To rebut the case of the petitioner, the respondents examined one Shri Harish Kumar,
Deputy Ranger, as RW-1, who has stated that the petitioner was engaged as worker under the
foreign aided project called ECO Development NOARD, executed by the wild life wing of the
forest department. The Project started in the year 1994-95 and came to an end in March, 2000 and
all the workers engaged under the aforesaid Project were disengaged along-with the petitioner,
when the Project came to an end. The petitioner and other workers had been engaged purely on
seasonal and temporary work. The petitioner had been engaged in the month of September, 1995 as
per mandays chart Ex. RW-1/A. The wages to the petitioner were being paid out of the funds of the
Project and not by the department. He further stated that some juniors to the petitioner namely
Surya Parkash, Man Bahadur, Jeet Ram, Ishwar and Duni Chand had been re-engaged as per the
directions of the Administrative Tribunal and one Shri Bhagat Ram was reengaged as per the orders
of the Hon’ble High Court . He also deposed that since the services of the petitioner had been
terminated on the termination of the Project as such there is no violation of section 25-F, 25-G and
25-H of the Act. In the cross-examination, he admitted that S/Shri Om Prakash and Prem Kumar
had raised an Industrial Dispute before Labour Court and the reference petition was decided in their
favour vide award Ex. PA/1. He further admitted that the petitioner had completed 240 days in a
calendar year preceding his termination as per mandays chart Ex. PW-1/A. He also admitted that no
notice of termination under section 25-F of the Act was issued to the petitioner.
13. I have closely scrutinized the entire evidence, on record, and from the closer scrutiny
thereof it has become clear that the services of the petitioner had been engaged as daily wage
labourer by the respondent department in the Project and after the closer of the same (Project), his
services stood terminated. It is also the admitted case of the parties that neither any notice was
served upon the petitioner before his termination nor compensation in lieu of notice as prescribed
under section 25-F of the Act, has been paid to him. The perusal of the mandays chart Ex. PW-1/A,
goes to show that the petitioner had worked with the respondent for 56 days in the year 1995, 275
days in 1997, 346 days in 1998, and 261 days in the year, 1999. It has also been admitted by RW-1
Shri Harish Kumar, Deputy Ranger that the petitioner had completed 240 days in a calendar year
preceding his termination. Now, the question which arises for consideration before this Court is as
to whether on the closer of the Project, the notice under section 25-F of the Act was required to be
given to the petitioner by the respondent or not. This question has been answered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in 2003 LLR 470, S.M Nilajkar & others Vs. Telecom District Manager,
Karnataka, wherein it has been held as under:
“The closure of a project or scheme by the State Government would be covered by closing
down of undertaking within the meaning of section 25FFF. The workman would
therefore be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of
section 25F though the right of employer to close the undertaking for any reason
whatsoever cannot be questioned”.
14. Therefore, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the petitioner had completed
240 working days in the twelve calendar months preceding his termination, it was incumbent upon
6044
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
the respondents to issue notice to the petitioner and to comply with the provisions of section 25F of
the Act, even, if the Project was to be closed, on its completion. At this stage, I would also like to
point out that the respondents have failed to lead any such evidence which could go to prove that at
the time of engagement of the petitioner, it had been brought to his notice that his services were
being engaged in a Project which was to last only for a particular length of time. In the absence of
such proof/evidence, I have no hesitation in holding that the services of the petitioner had been
terminated in contravention of the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. Since, the respondents
have failed to comply with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act, his termination is illegal and
unjustified.
15. Now, adverting to the other aspect of the case, the petitioner in his affidavit Ex. PA has
averred that after his termination the respondent department has re-engaged his juniors in service,
who had also worked in the Project. RW-1, Shri Harish Kumar, Deputy Ranger stated that the
workers namely Suryaprakash, Man Bahadur, Jeet Ram, Ishwar and Duni Chand, who were junior
to the petitioner were re-engaged as per the direction of the Administrative Tribunal. In cross-
examination, he admitted that most of the labourers who have been re-engaged under the orders of
the Labour Court/Administrative Tribunal were junior to the petitioner and they have been
regularized. Thus, from the evidence, on record, it has been proved that juniors to the petitioner
have been retained by the respondent department while terminating him which is clear cut violation
of the provisions of section 25-G of the Act. In CWP No. 555 of 2007 incase titled as Vijay Kumar
Vs. The Executive Engineer & Anr. , the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh has held as
under:
“…….Since the persons junior to the workman have been retained while retrenching
him, he was entitled to get protection under section 25-G of the Act even though he had
not completed 240 days preceding a block 12 calendar months at the time of his
retrenchment”.
16. Thus, having regard to entire evidence on record and in view of above cited rulings, I
have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the termination of services of the petitioner by
the respondent No. 4w.e.f. 11.2.2000 without complying with the provisions of the Act is illegal
and unjustified and thus the provisions of sections 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of the Act have been
violated.
Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in affirmative.
Issue no. 2.
17. Since I have held under Issue No. 1 above that the termination of services of the
petitioner by the respondents without complying with the provisions of the Act is illegal and
unjustified, hence the petitioner is held entitled to re-instatement in service alongwith seniority and
continuity. 18.
Now, the question which arises for consideration, before this Court is as to whether the
petitioner is entitled to full back wages as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The
petitioner neither pleaded nor proved that he was not gainfully employed after his retrenchment. In
(2009) 1 SCC 20, Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Limited Vs. Shamim Mirza, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “once the order of termination of services of an employee is
set-aside, ordinaril y, the relief of reinstatement is available to him. However, the entitlement of an
employee to get reinstated does not necessarily result in payment of full or partial back-wages,
which is independent of reinstatement”. It has further been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
2010 (1) SLJ S.C 70, M/s Ritu Marbals Vs. Prabhakant Shukla that “full back wages cannot be
6045
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
granted mechanically, upon an 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 noth ing tothe Industry”.
19. In the present case, the petitioner only prayed for his reinstatement with backwages in
his statement of claim and in his statement as PW-1. There is no cogent evidence led by the
petitioner that he was not gainfully employed after his termination. The petitioner was under an
obligation to plead and prove by leading cogent evidence that he was not gainfully employed after
his retrenchment. The initial burden is on the workman/employee to show that he was not gainfully
employed as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 363 titled as
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and another Vs. S.C Sharma that :
“16…………..When, the question of determining the entitlement of a person to back-
wages is concerned, the employee has to show that he was not gainfully employed. The
initial burden is on him. After and if he places materials in that regard, the employer
can bring on record materials to rebut the claim…………..”
20. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the petitioner has failed to discharge his
burden by placing any material on record that he was not gainfully employed after his termination
i.e. w.e.f. 11.2.2000. Therefore, in view of the entire evidence, on record, coupled with the rulings
(supra), I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to any back-wages.
Accordingly, issue no. 2 is partly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue no. 3.
21. In support of this Issue, neither any evidence was led by the respondents nor it was
pressed during the course of arguments. However, I find nothing wrong with this petition which is
perfectly maintainable in the present form. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the
petitioner and against the respondents.
Relief.
As a sequel to my findings on the aforesaid issues, the claim of the petitioner is allowed and
it is ordered that he (petitioner) be reinstated in service forth-with w.e.f. 11.2.2000, with seniority
and continuity but without back wages. Consequently, the reference stands answered in favour of
the 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 16th day of October, 2015.
By order,
(SUSHIL KUKREJA)
Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Shimla.
_________
IN THE COURT OF SUSHIL KUKREJA, PRESIDING JUDGE, HP INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUMLABOUR COURT, SHIMLA
Ref no. 83 of 2009.
Instituted on 29.10.2009.
Decided on 16.10.2015.
Hari Chand S/o Shri Ram Saran R/o Village Bharoi, P.O Roudi, Tehsil & District Shimla,
HP.
...Petitioner.
6046
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
VS.
1. The State of Himachal Pradesh through the Secretary Forest with Headquarter at
Shimla.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Himachal Pradesh Shimla (Talland),
Shimla.
3. The Conservator of Forest (Wild Life) Himachal Pradesh with Headquarter at
Hamirpur.
4. The Dy. Conservator of Forests, Wild Life Division, Khalini Shimla-2.
5. The Range Officer, Wild Life, Khalini, Shimla-171002.
...Respondents.
Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For petitioner: Shri Hemant Vaid, Advocate
For respondent: Shri Devender Chandel, ADA.
AWARD
The reference for adjudication, sent by the appropriate government, is as under:--
“Whether termination of the services of Shri Hari Chand S/o Shri Ram Saran by the Dy.
Conservator of Forests, Wild Life Division, Khalini Shimla-2 w.e.f. 11.2.2000 without
complying the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not,
whatamount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above
worker is entitled to from above employer?”
2. In nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that in the month of Jan., 1995, he had joined as
daily wage labourer in a wing of the Forest Department known as Environment Conservation
Operation in the wild life Division-4 (hereinafter referred to as ECO) for the work of plantation,
check dam, construction of parks etc. and the salary of the petitioner was drawn from the forest
department. It is stated that the services of the regular employees as well as daily wages labourers
of the ECO were inter transferable with the similar employees of the forest department and several
daily wages labourers had been shifted to the wild life from the ECO department in the last several
years. It is further stated that on 11.2.2000, the forest department and its ECO wing disengaged the
applicant from service and thereafter an OA no. 1538 of 2000 was filed by the petitioner before the
Administrative Tribunal wherein a direction was given to treat the same as representation by the
State of Himachal Pradesh through the Secretary Forest and others. The petitioner appeared before
the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, who dismissed the matter vide common order no. 619
of 2000 on 7.11.2000. Then the petitioner moved another OA no. 692 of 2001 against the aforesaid
order dated 7.11.2000 before the HP Administrative Tribunal, which was disposed of on 3.3.2006
holding that the matter of dispute related to Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as
Act) and it has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. It is further stated that thereafter the petitioner
made a demand before the Labour Officer as required under the Act by issuing a notice but the
conciliation proceedings failed and the matter was referred to this Court for adjudication. The
juniors to the petitioner namely Man Bahadur, Surya Prakash, Jeet Ram, Duni Chand, Jai Kishan,
Ishwar Dass and Bhagat Ram, are still working with the respondent and as such the termination of
6047
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
the services of the petitioner as daily wages labourers is in violation of the provisions of section 25-
G of the Act. The petitioner had completed more than 240 days in a year and his termination
without serving any show cause notice of one month and without paying retrenchment
compensation is in violation of the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. The services of the
petitioner have been dispensed with by the Range Officer, who was not the appointing authority of
the daily wage workers. Since, his services had been terminated in contravention of the provisions
of the Act, he deserves to be reinstated in service with retrospective effect alongwith all the
consequential benefits.
3. The petition has been contested, on having raised preliminary objections qua
jurisdiction and that the work on which the petitioner was engaged was being carried out
exclusively under Foreign Aided Project called Eco-Development NORAD Project (hereinafter
referred to as Project) and the respondent department was only executing agency. Due to non-
availability of funds, the Project came to a closer and the services of all the daily wagers including
petitioner had been automatically disengaged. On merits, it has been admitted that the petitioner
had been engaged on daily wages basis as per requirement of seasonal work w.e.f. 1.4.1997, in the
Project. It is denied that the petitioner was engaged in Jan., 1995. It is stated that the Project was a
foreign aided project which was being executed by Wild Life Division of Forest Department and as
such the workers deployed in this Project were paid wages from the Project funds and not by Forest
Department. The regular employees working in the Project were deployed from the forest
department for execution of Project work purely on secondment basis and some of daily wagers,
who were disengaged were re-engaged as per orders passed by the Administrative Tribunal. It is
dmitted that the representation of petitioner had been rejected by the Principal Chief Conservator
on 7.11.2000. It is admitted that one junior daily wager namely Shri Dhuni Chand S/O Sh. Amru
Ram had been re-engaged as per the orders passed by the HP Administrative Tribunal. The
respondent prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
4. By filing rejoinder, the petitioner has reaffirmed own allegations by denying those of
the respondent.
5. Pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues which were struck on
5.7.2010.
1. Whether the termination of the services of the petitioner is illegal and unjustified for
being in contravention of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as alleged?
...OPP.
2. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, to what relief of service benefits the petitioner is
entitled to?
...OPP.
3. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction as alleged in preliminary objection no.1?
...OPR.
4. Relief.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. ADA for the respondents
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 Yes
Issue no. 2 Entitled for continuity in service but without back wages.
6048
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
Issue no. 3 No.
Relief.
Reference answered in favour of the petitioner, per operative part of award.
Reasons for findings
Issue no. 1
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended the services of the petitioner had been
terminated illegally without serving any notice under section 25-F of the Act. Learned counsel
further contended that the petitioner had completed more than 240 working days in each calendar
year and his juniors are still working with the department.
9. On the other hand, Ld. ADA appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the
services of the petitioner had been engaged in ECO Project which was a foreign aided project and
due to non-availability of funds, the Project was closed and as such the services of the petitioner
stood automatically disengaged with the closer of the Project. He further contended that the juniors
had only been re-engaged as per the orders of the Courts.
10. Shri Satish Kumar, Forest Guard, has appeared into the witness box as PW-1 to depose
that the petitioner had been engaged as daily wage seasonal worker on 1.3.1995 in ECO Project and
no appointment letter had been issued to him. The copy of mandays chart of the petitioner is Ex.
PW-1/A. Due to closer of the Project the services of the petitioner had been terminated along-with
six other workers. Before terminating the services of the petitioner, he had completed more than
240 days. Similar situated person Shri Surya Prakash was engaged on 16.8.1996, whose services
had now been regularized. Similarly, Jeet Ram, Duni Chand, Bhagat Ram, Prem Kumar and Om
Prakesh had been engaged in ECO Project on 1.5.1996, 1.9.1997, 1.1.1995, 1.7.1995 and 1.11.1996
respectively, who were also disengaged on the completion of Project but on the orders of the Court,
all the aforesaid workers had been regularized. In the cross-examination, he has stated that the ECO
Project was started in the year, 1994 and closed on 31.3.2000 and the services of the petitioner had
been engaged only for seasonal work of ECO Project. He stated that all the aforesaid workers had
been re-engaged on the orders of the Courts.
11. Petitioner Shri Hari Chand appeared into the witness box as PW-2 and tendered his
affidavit Ex. PA in evidence, wherein he supported all the material facts as stated in the claim
petition. He also tendered in evidence the certified copy of reference no. 199 of 2003, Ex. PA-1.
Ex. PA-2, is the certified copy of order passed in OA no. 692 of 2001. The copy of order passed in
CWP no. 3557 of 2009 is Ex. PA-3 and the copy of order dated 7.11.2000 passed by Principal
Chief Conservator of Forests along-with detail of attendance, Ex. P-4. In cross-examination, he
denied that he was engaged in ECO Project in the year, 1997 but volunteered that he was engaged
in the year, 1995. He admitted that the said Project was for five years which was executed by the
forest department under wild life. He admitted that regular staff was also employed in the Project
which was deployed from the forest department. He also admitted that on the closure of the Project,
he along-with other daily wagers engaged in the said project were automatically disengaged. He
denied that his juniors had not been retained by the department after the closer of the Project.
12. To rebut the case of the petitioner, the respondents examined one Shri Harish Kumar,
Deputy Ranger, as RW-1, who has stated that the petitioner was engaged as worker under the
foreign aided project called ECO Development NOARD, executed by the wild life wing of the
forest department. The Project started in the year 1994-95 and came to an end in March, 2000 and
all the workers engaged under the aforesaid Project were disengaged along-with the petitioner,
when the Project came to an end. The petitioner and other workers had been engaged purely on
seasonal and temporary work. The petitioner had been engaged w.e.f. 1.4.1997 as per mandays
6049
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
chart Ex. RW-1/A. The wages to the petitioner were being paid out of the funds of the Project and
not by the department. He further stated that only Shri Duni Chand, who was junior to the
petitioner had been re-engaged as per the directions of the Administrative Tribunal. He also
deposed that since the services of the petitioner had been terminated on the termination of the
Project as such there is no violation of section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act. In the
crossexamination, he admitted that S/Shri Om Prakash and Prem Kumar had raised an Industrial
Dispute before Labour Court and the reference petition was decided in their favour vide award Ex.
PA/1. He further admitted that the petitioner had completed 240 days in a calendar year preceding
his termination as per mandays chart Ex. PW-1/A. He also admitted that no notice of termination
under section 25-F of the Act was issued to the petitioner.
13. I have closely scrutinized the entire evidence, on record, and from the closer scrutiny
thereof it has become clear that the services of the petitioner had been engaged as daily wage
labourer by the respondent department in the Project and after the closer of the same (Project), his
services stood terminated. It is also the admitted case of the parties that neither any notice was
served upon the petitioner before his termination nor compensation in lieu of notice as prescribed
under section 25-F of the Act, has been paid to him. The perusal of the mandays chart Ex. PW-1/A,
goes to show that the petitioner had worked with the respondent for 275 days in the year 1997, 282
days in 1998, and 254 days in 1999. It has been admitted by RW-1 Shri Harish Kumar that the
petitioner has completed 240 days in a calendar year preceding his termination. Now, the question
which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether on the closer of the Project, the
notice under section 25-F of the Act was required to be given to the petitioner by the respondents or
not. This question has been answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2003 LLR 470, S.M
Nilajkar & others Vs. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka, wherein it has been held as under:
“The closure of a project or scheme by the State Government would be covered by closing
down of undertaking within the meaning of section 25FFF. The workman would
therefore be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of
section 25F though the right of employer to close the undertaking for any reason
whatsoever cannot be questioned”.
14. Therefore, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the petitioner had completed
240 working days in the twelve calendar months preceding his termination, it was incumbent upon
the respondents to issue notice to the petitioner and to comply with the provisions of section 25-F
of the Act, even, if the Project was to be closed, on its completion. At this stage, I would also like
to point out that the respondents have failed to lead any such evidence which could go to prove that
at the time of engagement of the petitioner, it had been brought to his notice that his services were
being engaged in a Project which was to last only for a particular length of time. In the absence of
such proof/evidence, I have no hesitation in holding that the services of the petitioner had been
terminated in contravention of the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. Since, the respondents
have failed to comply with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act, his termination is illegal and
unjustified.
15. Now, adverting to the other aspect of the case, the petitioner in his affidavit Ex. PA has
averred that after his termination the respondent department has re-engaged his juniors in service,
who had also worked in the Project. RW-1, Shri Harish Kumar, Deputy Ranger stated that the
worker namely Shri Duni Chand, who was junior to the petitioner had been re-engaged as per the
direction of the Administrative Tribunal. In cross examination, he admitted that most of the
labourers who have been reengaged under the orders of the Labour Court/Administrative Tribunal
were junior to the petitioner and they have been regularized. Thus, from the evidence, on record, it
has been proved that juniors to the petitioner have been retained by the respondent department
6050
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
while terminating him which is clear cut violation of the provisions of section 25-G of the Act. In
CWP No. 555 of 2007 incase titled as Vijay Kumar Vs. The Executive Engineer & Anr. , the
Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh has held as
under:
“…….Since the persons junior to the workman have been retained while retrenching
him, he was entitled to get protection under section 25-G of the Act even though he had
not completed 240 days preceding a block 12 calendar months at the time of his
retrenchment”.
16. Thus, having regard to entire evidence on record and in view of above cited rulings, I
have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the termination of services of the petitioner by
the respondent No. 4 w.e.f. 11.2.2000 without complying with the provisions of the Act is illegal
and unjustified and thus the provisions of sections 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of the Act have been
violated.
Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in affirmative.
Issue no. 2.
17. Since I have held under Issue No. 1 above that the termination of services of the
petitioner by the respondents without complying with the provisions of the Act is illegal and
unjustified, hence, the petitioner is held entitled to re-instatement in service alongwith seniority and
continuity.
18. Now, the question which arises for consideration, before this Court is as to whether the
petitioner is entitled to full back wages as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The
petitioner neither pleaded nor proved that he was not gainfully employed after his retrenchment. In
(2009) 1 SCC 20, Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Limited Vs. Shamim Mirza, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “once the order of termination of services of an employee is
set-aside, ordinarily, the relief of reinstatement is available to him. However, the entitlement of an
employee to get reinstated does not necessarily result in payment of full or partial back-wages,
which is independent of reinstatement”. It has further been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
2010 (1) SLJ S.C 70, M/s Ritu Marbals Vs. Prabhakant Shukla that “full back wages cannot be
granted mechanically, upon an 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”.
19. In the present case, the petitioner only prayed for his reinstatement with backwages in
his statement of claim and in his statement as PW-1. There is no cogent evidence led by the
petitioner that he was not gainfully employed after his termination. The petitioner was under an
obligation to plead and prove by leading cogent evidence that he was not gainfully employed after
his retrenchment. The initial burden is on the workman/employee to show that he was not gainfully
employed as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 363 titled as
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and another Vs. S.C Sharma that :
“16…………..When, the question of determining the entitlement of a person to back-
wages is concerned, the employee has to show that he was not gainfully employed. The
initial burden is on him. After and if he places materials in that regard, the employer
can bring on record materials to rebut the claim…………..”
20. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the petitioner has failed to discharge his
burden by placing any material on record that he was not gainfully employed after his termination
i.e. w.e.f. 11.2.2000. Therefore, in view of the entire evidence, on record, coupled with the rulings
6051
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
(supra), I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to any back-wages.
Accordingly, issue no. 2 is partly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
Issue no. 3.
21. An objection has been taken by the respondents that the forest department is not an
industry but this objection does not hold good in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in 1978 (2) SCC 213,Banglore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A.
Rajappa in which it has been held that section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines
industry to mean any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employer and includes
any calling, service, employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of workman and
as such on the strength of this judgment, it can be safely concluded that the respondent department
is an Industry and governed by the Act, especially in case of the daily wage workers. Consequently,
this issue is answered in negative.
Relief.
As a sequel to my findings on the aforesaid issues, the claim of the petitioner is allowed and
it is ordered that he (petitioner) be reinstated in service forth-with w.e.f. 11.2.2000, with seniority
and continuity but without back wages. Consequently, the reference stands answered in favour of
the 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 16th day of October, 2015.
By order,
(SUSHIL KUKREJA)
Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Shimla.
_________
IN THE COURT OF SUSHIL KUKREJA, PRESIDING JUDGE, HP INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUMLABOUR COURT, SHIMLA
Ref no. 84 of 2009.
Instituted on 29.10.2009.
Decided on 16.10.2015.
Jai Singh S/o Shri Thakur Dass R/o Village Jablog, P.O Roudi, Tehsil & District Shimla,
HP.
...Petitioner.
VS.
1. The State of Himachal Pradesh through the Secretary Forest with Headquarter at
Shimla.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Himachal Pradesh Shimla (Talland),
Shimla.
3. The Conservator of Forest (Wild Life) Himachal Pradesh with Headquarter at
Hamirpur.
6052
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
4. The Deputy Conservator of Forests Himachal Pradesh, (D.F.O Wild Life), Khalini
Shimla-2.
5. The Range Officer, Wild Life, Khalini, Shimla-171002.
...Respondents.
Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For petitioner : Shri Hemant Vaid, Advocate
For respondent : Shri Devender Chandel, ADA.
AWARD
The reference for adjudication, sent by the appropriate government, is as under:--
“Whether termination of the services of Shri Jai Singh S/o Shri Thakur Dass by the Dy.
Conservator of Forests, Wild Life Division, Khalini Shimla-2 w.e.f. 11.2.2000 without
complying the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not,
what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above
worker is entitled to from above employer?”
2. In nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that in the month of Jan., 1995, he had joined as
daily wage labourer in a wing of the Forest Department known as Environment Conservation
Operation in the wild life Division-4 (hereinafter referred to as ECO) for the work of plantation,
check dam, construction of parks etc. and the salary of the petitioner was drawn from the forest
department. It is stated that the services of the regular employees as well as daily wages labourers
of the ECO were inter transferable with the similar employees of the forest department and several
daily wages labourers had been shifted to the wild life from the ECO department in the last several
years. It is further stated that on 11.2.2000, the forest department and its ECO wing disengaged the
applicant from service and thereafter an OA no. 1538 of 2000 was filed by the petitioner before the
Administrative Tribunal wherein a direction was given to treat the same as representation by the
State of Himachal Pradesh through the Secretary Forest and others. The petitioner appeared before
the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, who dismissed the matter vide common order no. 619
of 2000 on 7.11.2000. Then the petitioner moved another OA no. 745 of 2001 against the aforesaid
order dated 7.11.2000 before the HP Administrative Tribunal, which was disposed of on 10.1.2006
holding that the matter of dispute related to Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as
Act) and it has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. It is further stated that thereafter the petitioner
made a demand before the Labour Officer as required under the Act by issuing a notice but the
conciliation proceedings failed and the matter was referred to this Court for adjudication. The
juniors to the petitioner namely Man Bahadur, Surya Prakash, Jeet Ram, Duni Chand, Jai Kishan,
Ishwar Dass and Bhagat Ram, are still working with the respondent and as such the termination of
the services of the petitioner as daily wages labourers is in violation of the provisions of section 25-
G of the Act. The petitioner had completed more than 240 days in a year and his termination
without serving any show cause notice of one month and without paying retrenchment
compensation is in violation of the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. The services of the
petitioner have been dispensed with by the Range Officer, who was not the appointing authority of
the daily wage workers. Since, his services had been terminated in contravention of the provisions
of the Act, he deserves to be reinstated in service with retrospective effect alongwith all the
consequential benefits.
3. The petition has been contested, on having raised preliminary objections qua
jurisdiction and that the work on which the petitioner was engaged was being carried out
exclusively under Foreign Aided Project called Eco-Development NORAD Project (hereinafter
6053
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
referred to as Project) and the respondent department was only executing agency. Due to non-
availability of funds, the Project came to a closer and the services of all the daily wagers including
petitioner had been automatically disengaged. On merits, it has been admitted that the petitioner
had been engaged on daily wages basis as per requirement of seasonal work w.e.f. September,
1995, in the Project. It is denied that the petitioner was engaged in Jan., 1995. It is stated that the
Project was a foreign aided project which was being executed by Wild Life Division of Forest
Department and as such the workers deployed in this Project were paid wages from the Project
funds and not by Forest Department. The regular employees working in the Project were deployed
from the forest department for execution of Project work purely on secondment basis and some of
daily wagers, who were disengaged were re-engaged as per orders passed by the Administrative
Tribunal. It is admitted that the representation of petitioner had been rejected by the Principal Chief
Conservator on 7.11.2000. It is admitted that four junior daily wagers namely S/Shri Surya Parkash,
Jeet Ram, Ishwar Dass and Duni Chand daily wagers had been re-engaged as per the orders passed
by the HP Administrative Tribunal and Shri Bhagat Ram was re-engaged as per the orders passed
by the Hon’ble High Court. The respondent prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
4. By filing rejoinder, the petitioner has reaffirmed own allegations by denying those of
the respondent.
5. Pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues which were struck on
5.7.2010.
1. Whether the termination of the services of the petitioner is illegal and unjustified for
being in contravention of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as alleged?
...OPP.
2. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, to what relief of service benefits the petitioner is
entitled to?
...OPP.
3. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction as alleged in preliminary objection no.1?
...OPR.
4. Relief.
6.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. ADA for the respondents
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
Yes
Issue no.2
Entitled for continuity in service but without back wages.
Issue no.3
No.
Relief.
Reference answered in favour of the petitioner, per operative part of award.
Reasons for findings
Issue no.1
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended the services of the petitioner had been
terminated illegally without serving any notice under section 25-F of the Act. Learned counsel
further contended that the petitioner had completed more than 240 working days in each calendar
year and his juniors are still working with the department.
6054
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
9. On the other hand, Ld. ADA appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the
services of the petitioner had been engaged in ECO Project which was a foreign aided project and
due to non-availability of funds, the Project was closed and as such the services of the petitioner
stood automatically disengaged with the closer of the Project. He further contended that the juniors
had only been re-engaged as per the orders of the Courts.
10. Shri Satish Kumar, Forest Guard, has appeared into the witness box as PW-1 to depose
that the petitioner had been engaged as daily wage seasonal worker on 1.3.1995 in ECO Project and
no appointment letter had been issued to him. The copy of mandays chart of the petitioner is Ex.
PW-1/A. Due to closer of the Project the services of the petitioner had been terminated along-with
six other workers. Before terminating the services of the petitioner, he had completed more than
240 days. Similar situated person Shri Surya Prakash was engaged on 16.8.1996, whose services
had now been regularized. Similarly, Jeet Ram, Duni Chand, Bhagat Ram, Prem Kumar and Om
Prakesh had been engaged in ECO Project on 1.5.1996, 1.9.1997, 1.1.1995, 1.7.1995 and 1.11.1996
respectively, who were also disengaged on the completion of Project but on the orders of the Court,
all the aforesaid workers had been regularized. In the crossexamination, he has stated that the ECO
Project was started in the year, 1994 and closed on 31.3.2000 and the services of the petitioner had
been engaged only for seasonal work of ECO Project. He stated that all the aforesaid workers had
been re-engaged on the orders of the Courts.
11. Petitioner Shri Jai Singh appeared into the witness box as PW-2 and tendered his
affidavit Ex. PA in evidence, wherein he supported all the material facts as stated in the claim
petition. He also tendered in evidence the certified copy of reference no. 199 of 2003, Ex. PA-1.
Ex. PA-2, is the certified copy of order passed in OA no. 745 of 2001. The copy of order passed in
CWP no. 3557 of 2009 is Ex. PA-3 and the copy of order dated 7.11.2000 passed by Principal
Chief Conservator of Forests along-with detail of attendance, Ex. P-4. In cross-examination, he
denied that he was engaged initially during September, 1995 and not in Jan., 1995. He admitted that
he was engaged in ECO Project. He has no knowledge that he was engaged in a foreign aided
project named as ECO (NOARD) Project. He admitted that he used to get the daily wages not the
salary. He expressed his ignorance whether the services of regular employees and the daily wager
were inter transferable with the similar employees of the Forest Department. He also admitted that
on the closure of the Project, he along-with other daily wagers engaged in the said project were
automatically disengaged. He denied that his juniors had not been retained by the department after
the closer of the Project.
12. To rebut the case of the petitioner, the respondent examined one Shri Harish Kumar,
Deputy Ranger, as RW-1, who has stated that the petitioner was engaged as worker under the
foreign aided project called ECO Development NOARD, executed by the wild life wing of the
forest department. The Project started in the year 1994-95 and came to an end in March, 2000 and
all the workers engaged under the aforesaid Project were disengaged along-with the petitioner,
when the Project came to an end. The petitioner and other workers had been engaged purely on
seasonal and temporary work. The petitioner had been engaged in the month of September, 1995 as
per mandays chart Ex. RW-1/A. The wages to the petitioner were being paid out of the funds of the
Project and not by the department. He further stated that some juniors to the petitioner namely
Surya Parkash, Jeet Ram, Ishwar and Duni Chand had been re-engaged as per the directions of the
Administrative Tribunal and one Shri Bhagat Ram was re-engaged as per the orders of the Hon’ble
High Court. He also deposed that since the services of the petitioner had been terminated on the
termination of the Project as such there is no violation of section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act.
In the cross-examination, he admitted that S/Shri Om Prakash and Prem Kumar had raised an
Industrial Dispute before Labour Court and the reference petition was decided in their favour vide
award Ex. PA/1. He further admitted that the petitioner had completed 240 days in a calendar year
6055
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
preceding his termination as per mandays chart Ex. PW-1/A. He also admitted that no notice of
termination under section 25-F of the Act was issued to the petitioner.
13. I have closely scrutinized the entire evidence, on record, and from the closer scrutiny
thereof it has become clear that the services of the petitioner had been engaged as daily wage
labourer by the respondent department in the Project and after the closer of the same (Project), his
services stood terminated. It is also the admitted case of the parties that neither any notice was
served upon the petitioner before his termination nor compensation in lieu of notice as prescribed
under section 25-F of the Act, has been paid to him. The perusal of the mandays chart Ex. PW-1/A,
goes to show that the petitioner had worked with the respondent for 45 days in the year 1995, 149
days in 1997, 269 days in 1998 and 281 days in 1999. It has been admitted by RW-1 Shri Harish
Kumar that the petitioner has completed 240 days in a calendar year preceding his termination.
Now, the question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether on the closer of
the Project, the notice under section 25-F of the Act was required to be given to the petitioner by
the respondents or not. This question has been answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2003
LLR 470, S.M Nilajkar & others Vs. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka, wherein it has been
held as under:
“The closure of a project or scheme by the State Government would be covered by closing
down of undertaking within the meaning of section 25FFF. The workman would
therefore be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of
section 25F though the right of employer to close the undertaking for any reason
whatsoever cannot be questioned”.
14. Therefore, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the petitioner had completed
240 working days in the twelve calendar months preceding his termination, it was incumbent upon
the respondents to issue notice to the petitioner and to comply with the provisions of section 25-F
of the Act, even, if the Project was to be closed, on its completion. At this stage, I would also like
to point out that the respondents have failed to lead any such evidence which could go to prove that
at the time of engagement of the petitioner, it had been brought to his notice that his services were
being engaged in a Project which was to last only for a particular length of time. In the absence of
such proof/evidence, I have no hesitation in holding that the services of the petitioner had been
terminated in contravention of the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. Since, the respondents
have failed to comply with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act, his termination is illegal and
unjustified.
15. Now, adverting to the other aspect of the case, the petitioner in his affidavit Ex. PA has
averred that after his termination the respondent department has re-engaged his juniors in service,
who had also worked in the Project. RW-1, Shri Harish Kumar, Deputy Ranger stated that the
workers namely Suryaprakash, Jeet Ram, Ishwar and Duni Chand, who were junior to the petitioner
were reengaged as per the direction of the Administrative Tribunal. In cross-examination, he
admitted that most of the labourers who have been re-engaged under the orders of the Labour
Court/Administrative Tribunal were junior to the petitioner and they have been regularized. Thus,
from the evidence, on record, it has been proved that juniors to the petitioner have been retained by
the respondent department while terminating him which is clear cut violation of the provisions of
section 25-G of the Act. In CWP No. 555 of 2007 incase titled as Vijay Kumar Vs. The Executive
Engineer & Anr. , the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh has held as under:
“…….Since the persons junior to the workman have been retained while retrenching
him, he was entitled to get protection under section 25-G of the Act even though he had
not completed 240 days preceding a block 12 calendar months at the time of his
retrenchment”.
6056
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
16. Thus, having regard to entire evidence on record and in view of above cited rulings, I
have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the termination of services of the petitioner by
the respondent No. 4w.e.f. 11.2.2000 without complying with the provisions of the Act is illegal
and unjustified and thus the provisions of sections 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of the Act have been
violated. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in affirmative
Issue no. 2
17. Since I have held under Issue No.1 above that the termination of services of the
petitioner by the respondents without complying with the provisions of the Act is illegal and
unjustified, hence, the petitioner is held entitled to re-instatement in service alongwith seniority and
continuity.
18. Now, the question which arises for consideration, before this Court is as to whether the
petitioner is entitled to full back wages as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner neither pleaded nor proved that he was not gainfully employed after his
retrenchment. In (2009) 1 SCC 20, Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Limited Vs. Shamim
Mirza, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “once the order of termination of services of an
employee is set-aside, ordinarily, the relief of reinstatement is available to him. However, the
entitlement of an employee to get reinstated does not necessarily result in payment of full or partial
back-wages, which is independent of reinstatement”. It has further been held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in 2010 (1) SLJ S.C 70, M/s Ritu Marbals Vs. Prabhakant Shukla that “full
back wages cannot be granted mechanically, upon an 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”.
19. In the present case, the petitioner only prayed for his reinstatement with backwages in
his statement of claim and in his statement as PW-1. There is no cogent evidence led by the
petitioner that he was not gainfully employed after his termination. The petitioner was under an
obligation to plead and prove by leading cogent evidence that he was not gainfully employed after
his retrenchment. The initial burden is on the workman/employee to show that he was not gainfully
employed as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 363 titled as
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and another Vs. S.C Sharma that :
“16…………..When, the question of determining the entitlement of a person to back-
wages is concerned, the employee has to show that he was not gainfully employed. The
initial burden is on him. After and if he places materials in that regard, the employer
can bring on record materials to rebut the claim…………..”
20. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the petitioner has failed to discharge his
burden by placing any material on record that he was not gainfully employed after his termination
i.e. w.e.f. 11.2.2000. Therefore, in view of the entire evidence, on record, coupled with the rulings
(supra), I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to any back-wages.
Accordingly, issue no.2 is partly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
Issue no. 3.
21. An objection has been taken by the respondents that the forest department is not an
industry but this objection does not hold good in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in 1978 (2) SCC 213,Banglore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A.
6057
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
Rajappa in which it has been held that section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines
industry to mean any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employer and includes
any calling, service, employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of workman and
as such on the strength of this judgment, it can be safely concluded that the respondent department
is an Industry and governed by the Act, especially in case of the daily wage workers. Consequently,
this issue is answered in negative.
Relief.
As a sequel to my findings on the aforesaid issues, the claim of the petitioner is allowed and
it is ordered that he (petitioner) be reinstated in service forth-with w.e.f. 11.2.2000, with seniority
and continuity but without back wages. Consequently, the reference stands answered in favour of
the 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 16th day of October, 2015.
(SUSHIL KUKREJA)
Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Shimla.
_________
IN THE COURT OF SUSHIL KUKREJA, PRESIDING JUDGE, HP INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUMLABOUR COURT, SHIMLA
Ref no. 85 of 2009.
Instituted on 29.10.2009.
Decided on 16.10.2015.
Satish Kumar S/o Shri Lachmi Singh R/o Village Jablog, P.O Roudi, Tehsil & District
Shimla, HP.
…Petitioner.
VS.
1. The State of Himachal Pradesh through the Secretary Forest with Headquarter at
Shimla.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Himachal Pradesh Shimla (Talland),
Shimla.
3. The Conservator of Forest (Wild Life) Hiamchal Pradesh with headquarter at
Hamirpur.
4. The Dy. Conservator of Forest, Himachal Pradesh, DFO Wild Life Khalini Shimla-2.
5. The Range Officer, Wild Life Khalini, Shimla-171002.
...Respondents.
Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For petitioner: Shri Hemant Vaid, Advocate
For respondents: Shri Devender Chandel, ADA.
6058
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
AWARD
The reference for adjudication, sent by the appropriate government, is as under:--
“Whether termination of the services of Shri Satish Kumar S/o Shri Lachhmi Singh by
the Dy.Conservator of Forests, Wild Life Division, Khalini Shimla-2 w.e.f. 27.2.2000
without complying the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified?
If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the
above worker is entitled to from above employer?”
2. In nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that in the month of Jan., 1995, he had joined as
daily wage labourer in a wing of the Forest Department known as Environment Conservation
Operation in the wild life Division-4 (hereinafter referred to as ECO) for the work of plantation,
check dam, construction of parks etc. and the salary of the petitioner was drawn from the forest
department. It is stated that the services of the regular employees as well as daily wages labourers
of the ECO were inter transferable with the similar employees of the forest department and several
daily wages labourers had been shifted to the wild life from the ECO department in the last several
years. It is further stated that on 11.2.2000, the forest department and its ECO wing disengaged the
applicant from service and thereafter an OA no. 1538 of 2000 was filed by the petitioner before the
Administrative Tribunal wherein a direction was given to treat the same as representation by the
State of Himachal Pradesh through the Secretary Forest and others. The petitioner appeared before
the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, who dismissed the matter vide common order no. 619
of 2000 on 7.11.2000. Then the petitioner moved another OA no. 746 of 2001 against the aforesaid
order dated 7.11.2000 before the HP Administrative Tribunal, which was disposed of on 10.1.2006
holding that the matter of dispute related to Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as
Act) and it has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. It is further stated that thereafter the petitioner
made a demand before the Labour Officer as required under the Act by issuing a notice but the
conciliation proceedings failed and the matter was referred to this Court for adjudication. The
juniors to the petitioner namely Man Bahadur, Surya Prakash, Jeet Ram, Duni Chand, Jai Kishan,
Ishwar Dass and Bhagat Ram, are still working with the respondent and as such the termination of
the services of the petitioner as daily wages labourers is in violation of the provisions of section 25-
G of the Act. The petitioner had completed more than 240 days in a year and his termination
without serving any show cause notice of one month and without paying retrenchment
compensation is in violation of the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. The services of the
petitioner have been dispensed with by the Range Officer, who was not the appointing authority of
the daily wage workers. Since, his services had been terminated in contravention of the provisions
of the Act, he deserves to be reinstated in service with retrospective effect alongwith all the
consequential benefits.
3. The petition has been contested, on having raised preliminary objections qua
jurisdiction and that the work on which the petitioner was engaged was being carried out
exclusively under Foreign Aided Project called Eco-Development NORAD Project (hereinafter
referred to as Project) and the respondents department was only executing agency. Due to non-
availability of funds, the Project came to a closer and the services of all the daily wagers including
petitioner had been automatically disengaged. On merits, it has been admitted that the petitioner
had been engaged on daily wages basis as per requirement of seasonal work w.e.f. 1.3.1995, in the
Project. It is denied that the petitioner was engaged in Jan., 1995. It is stated that the Project was a
foreign aided project which was being executed by Wild Life Division of Forest Department and as
such the workers deployed in this Project were paid wages from the Project funds and not by Forest
Department. The regular employees working in the Project were deployed from the forest
department for execution of Project work purely on secondment basis and some of daily wagers,
who were disengaged were re-engaged as per orders passed by the Administrative Tribunal. It is
6059
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
admitted that the representation of petitioner had been rejected by the Principal Chief Conservator
on 7.11.2000. It is admitted that four junior daily wagers namely S/Shri Surya Parkash, Jeet Ram,
Ishwar Dass and Duni Chand daily wagers had been re-engaged as per the orders passed by the HP
Administrative Tribunal and Shri Bhagat Ram was re-engaged as per the orders passed by the
Hon’ble High Court. The respondent prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
4. By filing rejoinder, the petitioner has reaffirmed own allegations by denying those of
the respondents.
5. Pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues which were struck on
5.7.2010.
5. Whether the termination of the services of the petitioner is illegal and unjustified for
being in contravention of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as alleged?
...OPP.
6. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, to what relief of service benefits the petitioner is
entitled to?
...OPP.
7. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction as alleged in preliminary objection no.1?
...OPR.
8. Relief.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. ADA for respondent 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 Yes
Issue no. 2 Entitled for continuity in service but without back wages.
Issue no. 3 No.
Relief.
Reference answered in favour of the petitioner, per operative part of award.
Reasons for findings
Issue no.1
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended the services of the petitioner had been
terminated illegally without serving any notice under section 25-F of the Act. Learned counsel
further contended that the petitioner had completed more than 240 working days in each calendar
year and his juniors are still working with the department.
9. On the other hand, Ld. ADA appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the
services of the petitioner had been engaged in ECO Project which was a foreign aided project and
due to non-availability of funds, the Project was closed and as such the services of the petitioner
stood automatically disengaged with the closer of the Project. He further contended that the juniors,
had only been re-engaged as per the orders of the Courts.
10. Shri Satish Kumar, Forest Guard, has appeared into the witness box as PW-1 to depose
that the petitioner had been engaged as daily wage seasonal worker on 1.3.1995 in ECO Project and
no appointment letter had been issued to him. The copy of mandays chart of the petitioner is Ex.
6060
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
PW-1/A. Due to closer of the Project the services of the petitioner had been terminated along-with
six other workers. Before terminating the services of the petitioner, he had completed more than
240 days. Similar situated person Shri Surya Prakash was engaged on 16.8.1996, whose services
had now been regularized. Similarly, Jeet Ram, Duni Chand, Bhagat Ram, Prem Kumar and Om
Prakesh had been engaged in ECO Project on 1.5.1996, 1.9.1997, 1.1.1995, 1.7.1995 and 1.11.1996
respectively, who were also disengaged on the completion of Project but on the orders of the Court,
all the aforesaid workers had been regularized. In the cross-examination, he has stated that the ECO
Project was started in the year, 1994 and closed on 31.3.2000 and the services of the petitioner had
been engaged only for seasonal work of ECO Project. He stated that all the aforesaid workers had
been re-engaged on the orders of the Courts.
11. Petitioner Shri Satish Kumar appeared into the witness box as PW-2 and tendered his
affidavit Ex. PA in evidence, wherein he supported all the material facts as stated in the claim
petition. He also tendered in evidence the certified copy of reference no. 199 of 2003, Ex. PA-1.
Ex. PA-2, is the certified copy of order passed in OA no. 746 of 2001. The copy of order passed in
CWP no. 3557 of 2009 is Ex. PA-3 and the copy of order dated 7.11.2000 passed by Principal
Chief Conservator of Forests, Ex. P-4. In cross-examination, he denied that in the year, 1995, he
was engaged on bill and not on muster roll. He admitted that he was working as daily waged
mazdoor with the department. He expressed his ignorance that the regular staff of department was
deployed on secondment basis. He denied that they were neither under the wild life wing nor the
wild life division Shimla. He admitted that on the closure of ECO NOARD Project, he along-with
other daily wagers, engaged in the said Project, were automatically disengaged. He also denied that
he had worked only for three years in the Project.
12. To rebut the case of the petitioner, the respondents examined one Shri Harish Kumar,
Deputy Ranger, as RW-1, who has stated that the petitioner was engaged as worker under the
foreign aided project called ECO Development NOARD, executed by the wild life wing of the
forest department. The Project started in the year 1994-95 and came to an end in March, 2000 and
all the workers engaged under the aforesaid Project were disengaged along-with the petitioner,
when the Project came to an end. The petitioner and other workers had been engaged purely on
seasonal and temporary work. The petitioner had been engaged on 1.3.1995 as per mandays chart
Ex. RW-1/A. The wages to the petitioner were being paid out of the funds of the Project and not by
the department. He further stated that some juniors to the petitioner namely Surya Parkash, Salig
Ram, Jeet Ram, Ishwar and Duni Chand had been re-engaged as per the directions of the
Administrative Tribunal and one Shri Bhagat Ram was re-engaged as per the orders of the Hon’ble
High Court . He also deposed that since the services of the petitioner had been terminated on the
termination of the Project as such there is no violation of section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act.
In the cross-examination, he admitted that S/Shri Om Prakash and Prem Kumar had raised an
Industrial Dispute before Labour Court and the reference petition was decided in their favour vide
award Ex. PA/1. He further admitted that the petitioner had completed 240 days in a calendar year
preceding his termination as per mandays chart Ex. PW-1/A. He also admitted that no notice of
termination under section 25-F of the Act was issued to the petitioner.
13. I have closely scrutinized the entire evidence, on record, and from the closer scrutiny
thereof it has become clear that the services of the petitioner had been engaged as daily wage
labourer by the respondent department in the Project and after the closer of the same (Project), his
services stood terminated. It is also the admitted case of the parties that neither any notice was
served upon the petitioner before his termination nor compensation in lieu of notice as prescribed
under section 25-F of the Act, has been paid to him. The perusal of the mandays chart Ex. PW-1/A,
goes to show that the petitioner had worked with the respondent for 303 days in the year 1995, 362
days in 1996, 362 days in 1997, 363 days in 1998, 331 days in 1999 and 59 days i.e up to 27.2.2000
in the year 2000. The mandays chart of petitioner also shows that in the twelve calendar months
6061
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
preceding his termination, the petitioner had completed 240 days. It has been admitted by RW-1
Shri Harish Kumar that the petitioner has completed 240 days in a calendar year preceding his
termination. Now, the question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether on
the closer of the Project, the notice under section 25-F of the Act was required to be given to the
petitioner by the respondent or not. This question has been answered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in 2003 LLR 470, S.M Nilajkar & others Vs. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka,
wherein it has been held as under:
“The closure of a project or scheme by the State Government would be covered by closing
down of undertaking within the meaning of section 25FFF. The workman would
therefore be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of
section 25F though the right of employer to close the undertaking for any reason
whatsoever cannot be questioned”.
14. Therefore, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the petitioner had completed
240 working days in the twelve calendar months preceding his termination, it was incumbent upon
the respondents to issue notice to the petitioner and to comply with the provisions of section 25F of
the Act, even, if the Project was to be closed, on its completion. At this stage, I would also like to
point out that the respondents have failed to lead any such evidence which could go to prove that at
the time of engagement of the petitioner, it had been brought to his notice that his services were
being engaged in a Project which was to last only for a particular length of time. In the absence of
such proof/evidence, I have no hesitation in holding that the services of the petitioner had been
terminated in contravention of the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. Since, the respondents
have failed to comply with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act, his termination is illegal and
unjustified.
15. Now, adverting to the other aspect of the case, the petitioner in his affidavit Ex. PA has
averred that after his termination the respondent department has re-engaged his juniors in service,
who had also worked in the Project. RW-1, Shri Harish Kumar, Deputy Ranger stated that the
workers namely Suryaprakash, Shalig Ram, Jeet Ram, Ishwar and Duni Chand, who were junior to
the petitioner were re-engaged as per the direction of the Administrative Tribunal. In cross-
examination, he admitted that most of the labourers who have been re-engaged under the orders of
the Labour Court/Administrative Tribunal were junior to the petitioner and they have been
regularized. Thus, from the evidence, on record, it has been proved that juniors to the petitioner
have been retained by the respondents department while terminating him which is clear cut
violation of the provisions of section 25-G of the Act. In CWP No. 555 of 2007 incase titled as
Vijay Kumar Vs. The Executive Engineer & Anr. , the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal
Pradesh has held as under:
“…….Since the persons junior to the workman have been retained while retrenching
him, he was entitled to get protection under section 25-G of the Act even though he had
not completed 240 days preceding a block 12 calendar months at the time of his
retrenchment”.
16. Thus, having regard to entire evidence on record and in view of above cited rulings, I
have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the termination of services of the petitioner by
the respondent no.4 w.e.f. 27.2.2000 without complying with the provisions of the Act is illegal and
unjustified and thus the provisions of sections 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of the Act have been violated.
Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in affirmative.
6062
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
Issue no. 2
17. Since I have held under Issue No.1 above that the termination of services of the
petitioner by the respondents without complying with the provisions of the Act is illegal and
unjustified, hence, the petitioner is held entitled to re-instatement in service alongwith seniority and
continuity.
18. Now, the question which arises for consideration, before this Court is as to whether the
petitioner is entitled to full back wages as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The
petitioner neither pleaded nor proved that he was not gainfully employed after his retrenchment. In
(2009) 1 SCC 20, Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Limited Vs. Shamim Mirza, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “once the order of termination of services of an employee is
set-aside, ordinarily, the relief of reinstatement is available to him. However, the entitlement of an
employee to get reinstated does not necessarily result in payment of full or partial back-wages,
which is independent of reinstatement”. It has further been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
2010 (1) SLJ S.C 70, M/s Ritu Marbals Vs. Prabhakant Shukla that “full back wages cannot be
granted mechanically, upon an 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”.
19. In the present case, the petitioner only prayed for his reinstatement with backwages in
his statement of claim and in his statement as PW-1. There is no cogent evidence led by the
petitioner that he was not gainfully employed after his termination. The petitioner was under an
obligation to plead and prove by leading cogent evidence that he was not gainfully employed after
his retrenchment. The initial burden is on the workman/employee to show that he was not gainfully
employed as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 363 titled as
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and another Vs. S.C Sharma that :
“16…………..When, the question of determining the entitlement of a person to back-
wages is concerned, the employee has to show that he was not gainfully employed. The
initial burden is on him. After and if he places materials in that regard, the employer
can bring on record materials to rebut the claim…………..”
20. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the petitioner has failed to discharge his
burden by placing any material on record that he was not gainfully employed after his termination
i.e. w.e.f. 27.2.2000. Therefore, in view of the entire evidence, on record, coupled with the rulings
(supra), I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to any back-wages.
Accordingly, issue no.2 is partly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue no. 3.
21. An objection has been taken by the respondents that the forest department is not an
industry but this objection does not hold good in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in 1978 (2) SCC 213,Banglore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A.
Rajappa in which it has been held that section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines
industry to mean any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employer and includes
any calling, service, employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of workman and
as such on the strength of this judgment, it can be safely concluded that the respondent department
is an Industry and governed by the Act, especially in case of the daily wage workers. Consequently,
this issue is answered in negative.
6063
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
Relief.
As a sequel to my findings on the aforesaid issues, the claim of the petitioner is allowed and
it is ordered that he (petitioner) be reinstated in service forth-with w.e.f. 27.2.2000, with seniority
and continuity but without back wages. Consequently, the reference stands answered in favour of
the 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 16th day of October, 2015.
(SUSHIL KUKREJA)
Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Shimla.
________
IN THE COURT OF SUSHIL KUKREJA, PRESIDING JUDGE, INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUMLABOUR COURT, SHIMLA, (H.P) CAMP AT SOLAN.
Application No. 8 of 2012.
Instituted on.26.3.2012
Decided on 8.10.2015.
Pancham Ram S/o Shri Mithai Ram R/o A-137, Gali No.3, North Vinod Nagar, Mandawli,
Dehli-110092, C/o Shri Om Dutt Sharma, VPO Taksal, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, HP.
...Petitioner.
Vs.
M/s Forge India Pvt., Ltd., Sector-5 Parwanoo, District Solan, HP, through its Factory
Manager.
...Respondent.
Claim petition under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For petitioner : Shri Vibhu Banal, Advocate.
For respondent : Shri Alok Bhardwaj, Advocate.
AWARD/ORDER
The present claim petition has been filed, directly, by the petitioner stating therein that he
was appointed as Operator by the respondent w.e.f. Jan., 2007 @ Rs. 7,385/- per month and as such
he served in the respondent concern for almost three and half years and has completed more than
240 days as per section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as Act). The
services of the petitioner had been terminated on 6.8.2010, without giving any prior notice, reason
and opportunity of being heard as per the requirement of section 25-G & 25-H of the Act. It is
further stated that the petitioner had not been paid the salary for the months of July and August
apart from the over-time charges. Juniors and similarly situated persons to the petitioner are
working with the respondent and his services had been terminated without holding enquiry and
6064
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
issuing show cause notice and chargesheet and as such the dismissal of the services of the petitioner
is in violation of section 25 of the Act. Against this back-drop a prayer for reinstatement with full
back-wages and other consequential service benefits has been made.
2. By filing reply, the respondent contested the claim of the petitioner wherein,
preliminary objections qua maintainability, estoppel and cause of action have been raised. On
merits, it is asserted that the petitioner had never been terminated but he abandoned the job at his
own. The respondent had written several letters to the petitioner for resuming duties but he did not
turn up. It is denied that the salary for the months of July, August and over time charges had not
been paid to the petitioner. It is further asserted that the respondent has no hostility or objection if
the petitioner as on today resume his service because he was never terminated by the respondent,
who left the job at his own and as such the respondent prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
3. Rejoinder not filed. Pleadings of the parties give rise to the following issues which
were struck on 9.7.2013.
1. Whether the termination of the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 8.6.2010, without
giving any prior notice and in violation of the requirements of section 25-G and 25-H
of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 is illegal and unjustified as alleged?
...OPP.
2. If issue no-1 is provide in affirmative to what service benefits the petitioner is entitle
to?
...OPP.
3. Whether this petition is neither competent nor maintainable as alleged?
...OPR.
4. Whether this petition is time barred as alleged?
...OPR.
5. Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing this petition by his own acts, conduct
etc.?
...OPR.
6. Relief.
4. Besides having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I, have also gone through the
record of the case carefully.
5. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing issues for determination,
my findings on the aforesaid issues are as under.
Issue no.1 No.
Issue no.2 Becomes redundant.
Issue no.3. No.
Issue no.4 No.
Issue no.5 No.
Relief. Reference answered against the petitioner and in favour of respondent, per
operative part of award.
Reasons for findings
Issue no.1
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the services of the petitioner had
wrongly been terminated without following the mandatory provisions of the Act. Learned counsel
further contended that since the respondent had retained juniors to the petitioner, hence, there is
violation of sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act.
6065
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
7.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the
services of the petitioner had never been terminated by the respondent, who himself had abandoned
the job without any intimation to the respondent company.
8. The petitioner stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.
PW-1/A, in evidence, wherein he has reiterated all the contents as made-out by him in the claim
petition including that he used to work for more than 12 hours a day but the respondent company
had not paid him the salary for the months of July, August and over-time charges, which are still
due to be paid and that he is un-employed. He also tendered copy of letter dated 12.8.2010, mark X
written by him to the respondent. In the cross-examination, he denied that the respondent had
written several letters to him regarding his absence from duties. He also denied that from 6.8.2010,
he had not come to work. He denied that he himself abandoned his job. He admitted that he had
approached the Labour Inspector Parwanoo after 6.8.2010. He also admitted that before Labour
Inspector, Parwanoo, the respondent company had offered him to resume the duties but stated that
by that time one year had elapsed. He further admitted that the respondent company had written
various letters to him regarding resumption of duties after 6.8.2010. He denied that all the dues had
been paid to him by the respondent company before 6.8.2010.
9. To rebut the case of the petitioner Shri Kuldeep Singh, Executive Officer, has appeared
in to the witness box as RW-1 and tendered his affidavit Ex. RW-1/A in examination-in-chief. He
also tendered authority letter Ex. RW-1/B. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the petitioner
was working with the respondent since, 2007 till 6.8.2010. He denied that the petitioner was dong
over-time. He denied that the services of the petitioner had been terminated without notice but
stated that he abandoned his jab on his own. He expressed his ignorance as to whether the salary for
the month of July & August 2010 had been paid to the petitioner or not. He admitted that being
Executive Officer, he had not written any letter to the petitioner to join his duties but explained that
the respondent company had written three letters Ex. RP-2 to Ex. RP-4 thereby calling him to
resume his duties but he did not turn up.
10. I have closely scrutinized the entire evidence, on record, and from the closer scrutiny
thereof, it has become clear that the petitioner was engaged as operator by the respondent company
w.e.f. Jan., 2007 and worked as such till 6.8.2010. The petitioner stated as PW-1 that his services
had been terminated by the respondent in an illegal manner without following the mandatory
provisions of the Act. On the other hand, RW-1 Shri Kuldeep Singh, Executive Officer has deposed
that the services of the petitioner had never been terminated by the company and in fact he himself
had abandoned the job without any intimation. The respondent has produced on record letter dated
11.8.2010, Ex. RP-2, which shows that the petitioner was called by the respondent to resume his
duties which fact has also been admitted by the petitioner in his cross-examination that the
respondent company had written various letters to him regarding resumption of duties after
6.8.2010. The respondent has also placed on record reply to legal notice dated 5.2.2011, Ex. RP-4,
which shows that the petitioner was also informed through his counsel that he could come & join
the duty. Therefore, the perusal of the evidence and material placed on record shows that the
respondent had been issuing various letters to the petitioner to resume his duties but the petitioner
had not joined the same and such conduct on the part of the petitioner speaks that he himself had
abandoned his job and his services were not terminated by the respondent. In a similar situation our
own Hon’ble High Court in Nagar Parishad Bilaspur Vs. Bone Ram reported in 2005 (1) Shim.
LC 79 has held that where the conduct of the workman is such that he had abandoned his job, his
services would stand automatically terminated in law. The relevant extract of the aforesaid
judgment reads as under:
“10……… In this background, the only inference which can be drawn from the
conduct of the workman is that he abandoned his job and his services stood
automatically terminated in law. Such an automatic termination of services, caused by
6066
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
workman himself and not by the Employer, would not fall within the definition of
“retrenchment”.
11. In the instant case also as observed earlier when the respondent had been issuing letters
to the petitioner to resume his duties but despite that the petitioner had not joined the same, his such
conduct clearly speaks that he himself had abandoned his job and his case would not fall within the
definition of retrenchment as such there is no question of violation of any provision of the Act.
Hence, it cannot be said that the termination of the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 6.8.2010, is
illegal and unjustified. Consequently, this issue is answered in negative.
Issue no. 2.
12. Since, the petitioner has failed to prove issue no.1, this issue become redundant.
Issue No. 3.
13. In support of this issue, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that since the
appropriate government has not referred the dispute for adjudication under reference and the
petitioner has approached this court directly which is not maintainable. However, when regard is
given to the present application having been filed by the petitioner is of dated 14.3.2012 whereas
the petitioner has raised demand notice Mark X under section 2-A on 12.8.2010. When, the
appropriate government failed to send the dispute within a period of 45 days, the petitioner has
filed the present application directly, which is perfectly maintainable in the present form. Hence,
this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
Issue no. 4.
14. It could not be explained by the respondent as to why this petition is time barred. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in (1999) 6 SCC 82, Ajayab singh Vs. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing –
cum- processing Service Society Limited and Another has held as under:
“The provisions of Article 137 of Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the
proceeding under the ID Act. The relief under the ID Act cannot be denied merely on the
ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a
matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No
reference to the Labour Court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone”
Consequently, in-view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, I hold that this petition
is not time barred. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the
respondent.
Issue no .5
15. An objection has been taken by the respondent that the petitioner is estopped from
filing the petition due to his act and conduct but in support thereof, no specific evidence has been
led. Thus, by holding that the petitioner is not estopped from filing this petition, this issue is
answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
Relief.
As a sequel to my findings on the aforesaid issues, the claim of the petitioner fails and is
hereby dismissed. Let a copy of this award/order be sent to the appropriate government for
publication in official gazette. File, after completion be consigned to records.
6067
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
Announced in the open Court today on this 8th Day of October, 2015.
(SUSHIL KUKREJA)
Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Shimla.
________
App.18 of 2014
Sh Ramesh Chand V/s Ex Engg. HPPWD & others
26.10.2015.
Present:-
None for the petitioner.
Shri H.N. Kashyap, ADA for respondent Non-1
None for respondent no. 2.
Case called twice but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
It is 11.00 AM. Be awaited.
(SUSHIL KUKERJA)
Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Shimla.
_________
Case called again
26.10.2015.
Present:-
None for the petitioner.
Shri H.N. Kashyap, ADA for respondent Non-1
None for respondent no.2.
It is 12.35 PM. Case called again but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Be called
after lunch.
(SUSHIL KUKERJA)
Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Shimla.
________
Case called after lunch
26.10.2015.
Present:-
None for the petitioner.
Shri H.N. Kashyap, ADA for respondent Non-1
None for respondent no.2.
It is 3.30 PM. Case called several times in pre and post lunch sessions but none has
appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Today, the case is listed for the evidence of the petitioner but
6068
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
neither petitioner not his counsel has put in appearance before this Court despite the fact that he has
been afforded various opportunities to lead evidence in support of his claim. Since, the petitioner
has failed to lead any evidence in support of his claim, this Court is left with no other alternative
but to decide the application on the basis of material whichever is available on the file. The
petitioner, in his claim petition, has stated that his services had been terminated orally and illegally
by the respondent in the month of March, 2010 and he had completed 240 days in the preceding
twelve calendar months and that his juniors were retained by the respondents, who are still in
service but in support of his such contention, no evidence has been led by him. Moreover, there is
no material on record, whatsoever, which may go to substantiate the contentions of the petitioner
that his services had been illegally terminated by the respondent w.e.f. March, 2010 and that he had
completed 240 days in the preceding twelve calendar months and that his juniors were retained by
the respondents, who are still in service. Hence, in the absence of any material/ evidence on record,
this application fails and is hereby dismissed. Since, the petitioner has filed this application under
section 2-A of the Act, 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:
26.10.2015
(SUSHIL KUKERJA)
Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Shimla.
Court, Shimla.
_________
PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATION
Shimla-9, the 26th, November, 2015
No. PCH-HA(3)23/95- II The Governor of Himachal Pradesh is pleased to notify following
Incentive/Award Scheme in the shape of Grant-in-aid to those Gram Panchayats, Panchayat Samitis and
Zila Parishads who will return all their office bearers un-opposed during the ensuing general elections
of Panchayati Raj bodies:--
Condition of entitlement of awards in the shape of Grant-in- aid
Award money
Incentive for Gram Panchayat for returning all its members, Pradhan
and Up-Pradhan un-opposed.
Rs. 10.00 Lakh
Incentive for Panchayat Samiti for returning all its members,
Chairman and Vice-Chairman un-opposed.
Rs. 5.00 Lakh
Incentive for Zila Parishad for returning all its members, Chairman
and Vice-Chairman un-opposed.
Rs. 15.00 Lakh
By order,
(ONKAR SHARMA),
Secretary (Panchayati Raj).
6069
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
c vnkyr rglhynkj ,oa lgk;d lekgrkZ izFke Js.kh] lqtkuiqj] rglhy lqtkuiqj]
ftyk gehjiqj] fgekpy izns'k
jkt fd'ku iq= Jh jk/kk d`"k.k] oklh lqtkuiqj] ekStk HkysB] rglhy lqtkuiqj] ftyk gehjiqj
¼fg0 iz0½
cuke
vke turk
fo"k;-&rLnhd fd;k tkuk bUrdky uacj 10433 fnukad 13&03&2015 ntZ dkxtkr ekyA
mijksDr fo"k; ds lUnHkZ esa mijksDr Qjhdnks;e o vke turk dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd
txnh'kojh iq=h fdjik jke] oklh lqtkuiqj dh e`R;q fnukad 09&12&2004 dks gks pqdh gS] ftldh tokuh
olh;r cjk, vey njken jkt fd'ku iq= jk/kk d`"k.k] oklh lqtkuiqj] ekStk HkysB] rglhy lqtkuiqj]
ftyk gehjiqj ¼fg0 iz0½ us iVokj [kkuk lqtkuiqj esa nh gSA bl tokuh clh;r ds vuqlkj ;g bUrdky
uacj 10433 fnukad 13&03&2015 dks fVdk lqtkuiqj] ekStk HkysB] rglhy lqtkuiqj cgd jkt fd'ku iq=
jk/kk d`"k.k oklh lqtkuiqj ekStk HkysB rglhy lqtkuiqj ds dkxtkr eky esa ntZ gksdj cjk;s QSlyk dks
fopkjk/khu gS mijksDr bUrdky esa lfEefyr olh;r dh iqf"V gsrq dk;Zokgh tkjh gS ftlesa e`frdk ds
tk;t okjlku dks dbZ ckj bÙkykg Hksth xbZ ijUrq mudks dgha ckgj jgus ds dkj.k bÙkykg lk/kkj.k
rjhds ls ugha gks ldh ftl otg ls bUrdky etdwj dkQh vjlk ls yfEcr iM+k gSA v/kksgLrk{kjh dks
iw.kZ fo'okl gks pqdk gS fd mijksDr e`frdk ds okjlku dh ryoh lk/kkj.k rjhds ls ugha gks ldrh gSA
vr% mUgsa b'rgkj gtk }kjk lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS mijksDr ntZ 'kqnk bUrdky dk QSlyk djus ds fy,
fnukad 26&12&2015 dks frfFk fuf'pr dh xbZ gS vkSj bl bUrdky esa is'k dh xbZ tokuh olh;r ds
ckjk vxj mudks dksbZ mtj ;k ,rjkt gks rks og mDr fnukad dks viuk i{k vlkyru ;k odkyru
v/kksgLrk{kjh ds le{k izLrqr dj ldrs gaSA gkftj u vkus dh lwjr esa muds f[kykQ ,d rjQk dk;Zokgh
ykrs gq, bldk QSlyk vuqlkj tokuh olh;r dks xq.k o nks"k ds vk/kkj ij ekurs gq, bUrdky dk
QSlyk mudh xSj gktjh esa dj fn;k tk;sxkA
;s b'rgkj eksgj vnkyr o esjs gLrk{kj ls vkt fnukad 20&11&2015 dks tkjh gqvkA
eksgjA
gLrk{kfjr@&
rglhynkj ,oa lgk;d lekgrkZ izFke Js.kh]
lqtkuiqj] ftyk gehjiqj] fg0 iz0A
&&&&&&&
In the Court of Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Marriage Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Jawalamukhi, District Kangra (H.P.)
In the matter of :
1.
Hari Dass aged 21 years s/o Shri Ram Lok, r/o Village Basadi, Post Office Kohala,
Tehsil Jawalmukhi, District Kangra (H.P.).
2.
Shivani aged 18 years d/o Kuldeep Chand, r/o Village Bahana Kalan, Post Office
Ghallour, Tehsil Jawalamukhi, District Kangra (H.P.)
. . Applicants
Versus
General Public
6070
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
Subject:— Notice of Intended Marriage.
Hari Dass & Shivani have filed an application U/O of Special Marriage Act, 1954
alongwith affidavits in the court of undersigned in which they stated that they intend to solemnized
marriage within three calender months.
Therefore, the general public is hereby informed through this notice that any person who
has any objection regarding this marriage can file the objection personally or in writing before this
court on or before 24-12-2015. The objection received after 24-12-2015 will not be entertained and
marriage will be registered accordingly.
Issued today on 23-11-2015 under my hand and seal of the court.
Seal.
Sd/-
Marriage Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Jawalamukhi, District Kangra (H.P.).
__________
In the Court of Shri Rohit Rathour, HAS, Marriage Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Kullu, District Kullu, H. P.
In the matter of :
1.
Sunil Dutt s/o Jogi Ram r/o Village Chanjhr, P.O. Puid, Tehsil & District Kullu.
2.
Mrs. Babita d/o Jeet Bahadur r/o Varamkot, Village Baggi, District Arga Kanchi
Lumini Anchal Nepal.
. . Applicants.
Versus
General Public
Subject.—Proclamation for the registration of Marriage under section 16 of Special Marriage Act,
1954.
Shri Sunil Dutt and Mrs. Babita have filed an application on dated 19-11-2015 along with
affidavits in the court of undersigned under section 16 of Special Marriage Act, 1954 that they have
solemnized their marriage on 18-9-2014 and they are living as husband and wife since then, hence
their marriage may be registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
Therefore, the general public is hereby informed through this notice that any person who
has any objection regarding this marriage can file the objection personally or writing before this
court on or before 19-12-2015. The objection received after 19-12-2015 will not be entertained and
marriage will be registered accordingly.
Issued today 19-11-2015 under my hand and seal of the court.
Seal.
ROHIT RATHOUR,
Marriage Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Kullu.
6071
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
In the Court of Shri Rohit Rathour, HAS, Marriage Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Kullu, District Kullu, H. P.
In the matter of :
1.
Amit Mahajan s/o Rattan Lal Mahajan r/o mahajan Cottage Village Badah, P.O.
Mohal, Tehsil & District Kullu.
2.
Miss Priya Bhatia d/o Krishan Lal Bhatia r/o 67/3, Chakeri, GT Road Gandhi Gram,
Kanpur Nagar, Utter Pradesh
. . Applicants.
Versus
General Public
Subject.—Proclamation for the registration of Marriage under section 16 of Special Marriage Act,
1954.
Shri Amit Mahajan and Miss Priya Bhatia have filed an application on dated 21-11-2015
along with affidavits in the court of undersigned stating therin that they are unmarriad and they
intend to solmnized their marriage under section 11 of Special Marriage Act, 1954.
Therefore, the general public is hereby informed through this notice that any person who
has any objection regarding this marriage can file the objection personally or writing before this
court on or before 21-12-2015. The objection received after 21-12-2015 will not be entertained and
marriage will be registered accordingly.
Issued today 21-11-2015 under my hand and seal of the court.
Seal.
ROHIT RATHOUR,
Marriage Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Kullu.
________
c vnkyr jkgqy pkSgku] LiS'ky eSfjt vf/kdkjh ¼,l0Mh0,e0½ tksfxUnj uxj] ftyk e.Mh] fg0 iz0
c eqdÌek %
lalkj pan iq= C;kl nso] xkao ily gkj] Mk0 [kk0 pkSUrMk] rglhy tksfxUnz uxj] ftyk e.Mh]
fg0 iz0
- - ifrA
larks"k dqekjh iRuh lalkj pan] xkao ily gkj] Mk0 [kk0 pkSUrMk] rglhy tksfxUnz uxj] ftyk
e.Mh] fg0 iz0
- - iRuhA
cuke
vke turk
izkFkZuk&i= tsj /kkjk 15] pSiVj 111] LiS'ky eSfjt ,DV] 1954 ds vUrxZr fookg iathdj.k djus ckjkA
mijksDr ekeyk esa lalkj pan o larks"k dqekjh us bl U;k;ky; esa izkFkZuk&i= is'k fd;k gS fd
mUgksus fnukad 23&09&2006 dks fgUnw jhfr fjokt ds vuqlkj xkao ily gkj] M0 [kk0 pkSUrMk] rglhy
tksfxUnz uxj esa 'kknh dh gS] vkSj rc ls ifr&iRuh ds :i esa jgrs pys vk jgs gSaA vr% tsj/kkjk 15
pSiVj 111 liS'ky eSfjt ,DV 1954 ds vUrxZr mudk fookg iathd`r fd;k tkosA
6072
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
vr% vke turk] muds fj'rsnkjksa o ekrk&firk dks bl b'rgkj }kjk lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd
;fn fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks bl ckjk dksbZ mtj o ,rjkt gks rks og fnukad 21&12&2015 dks ckn nksigj
2-00 cts ;k blls iwoZ vlkyru ;k odkyru gktj vnkyr gksdj is'k djsa vU;Fkk ,d rjQk dk;Zokgh
vey esa ykbZ tkdj 'kknh iathdj.k izek.k&i= tkjh dj fn;k tkosxk rFkk ckn esa dksbZ Hkh mtj dkcys
lek;r u gksxkA
vkt fnukad 21&11&2015 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr ls tkjh gqvk gSA
eksgjA
jkgqy pkSgku ¼fg0iz0ls0½]
fookg iathdj.k vf/kdkjh ¼mie.My n.Mkf/kdkjh¼uk0½]
tksfxUnj uxj] ftyk e.Mh ¼fg0 iz0½A
&&&&&&&
Before Shri Narayan Singh Chauhan, Executive Magistrate (Tehsildar),
Kasauli, District Solan, H. P.
Case No. : 33/ 2015 Date of Institution : 23-11-2015 Date of Decision/
Pending for : 29-12-2015
Smt. Meena Rana wife of Shri Dipendra Bahadur Rana, resident of H. No. 61, Arhat Bazar
Kasauli, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H. P.
. . Applicant.
Versus
General Public
. . Respondents.
Application under Section 13(3) of Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1969.
Smt. Meena Rana wife of Shri Dipendra Bahadur Rana, resident of H. No. 61, Arhat Bazar
Kasauli, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H. P. has moved an application before the undersigned
under section 13(3) of Births & Deaths Registration Act, 1969 along with affidavits and other
documents stating therein that her son namely Nishchal Rana was born on 13-11-1999 at H. No. 61,
Arhat Bazar Kasauli, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H. P. but his birth could not be entered in the
record of Cantt. Board Kasauli, Tehsil Kasauli within stipulated period. Hence she prayed for
passing necessary orders to the C.E.O.-cum-Registrar, Births & Deaths Registration, Cantt. Board
Kasauli, Tehsil Kasauli, for entering the same in the births & deaths records.
Therefore, by this proclamation the general public is hereby informed that any person
having any objection for the registration of delayed birth of Nishchal Rana son of Shri Dipendra
Bahadur Rana may submit their objections in writing in this court on or before 29-12-2015 at
10.00 A.M. failing which no objection will be entertained after expiry of date.
Given under my hand and seal of the court on this 23rd day November, 2015.
Seal.
Sd/-
(NARAYAN SINGH CHAUHAN),
Executive Magistrate (Tehsildar),
Kasauli, District Solan, H. P.
6073
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
Before Shri Narayan Singh Chauhan, Executive Magistrate (Tehsildar),
Kasauli, District Solan, H. P.
Case No. : 32/ 2015 Date of Institution : 23-11-2015 Date of Decision/
Pending for : 29-12-2015
Smt. Lal Mati Pun wife of Shri Bhim Bahadur Pun, resident of H. No. 36, Near Krishan
Bhawan Mandir, Arhat Bazar Kasauli, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H. P.
. . Applicant.
Versus
General Public
. . Respondents.
Application under Section 13(3) of Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1969.
Smt. Lal Mati Pun wife of Shri Bhim Bahadur Pun, resident of H. No. 36, Near Krishan
Bhawan Mandir, Arhat Bazar Kasauli, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H. P. has moved an
application before the undersigned under section 13(3) of Births & Deaths Registration Act, 1969
along with affidavits and other documents stating therein that her son namely Nishchal Pun and
daughter Nivia Pun were born on 11-08-2008 and 25-10-2006 respectively at H. No. 36, Near
Krishan Bhawan Mandir, Arhat Bazar Kasauli, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H. P. but their birth
could not be entered in the record of Cantt. Board Kasauli, Tehsil Kasauli within stipulated period.
Hence she prayed for passing necessary orders to the C.E.O.-cum-Registrar, Births & Deaths
Registration, Cantt. Board Kasauli, Tehsil Kasauli, for entering the same in the births & deaths
records.
Therefore, by this proclamation the general public is hereby informed that any person
having any objection for the registration of delayed birth of Nishchal Pun and Nivia Pun son of
Shri Bhim Bahadur Pun may submit their objections in writing in this court on or before
29-12-2015 at 10.00 A.M. failing which no objection will be entertained after expiry of date.
Given under my hand and seal of the court on this 23rd day November, 2015.
Seal.
Sd/-
(NARAYAN SINGH CHAUHAN),
Executive Magistrate (Tehsildar),
Kasauli, District Solan, H. P.
6074
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 08 fnlEcj] 2015@17 vxzgk;.k] 1937
fu;U=d] eqnz.k rFkk ys[ku lkexzh] fgekpy izns'k] f'keyk&5 }kjk eqfnzr rFkk izdkf'kr
bysDVªkWfud gLrk{kfjr jkti=] oSclkbV http://rajpatrahimachal.nic.in ij miyC/k gS ,oe~ vkWuykbu lR;kfir fd;k tk ldrk gS