jkti=] fgekpy izns'k
fgekpy izns'k jkT; 'kklu }kjk izdkf'kr
lkseokj] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
fgekpy izns'k ljdkj
LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATION
Shimla, the 5th May, 2016
No: Sharm (A) 6-1/2014 (Awards).— In exercise of the powers vested under section 17(1)
of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, the Governor Himachal Pradesh is pleased to order the
publication of awards of the following cases announced by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court
Shimla on the website of the Department of Labour & Employment of the Government of
Himachal Pradesh:—
245&jkti=@2016&14&03&2016 ¼8705½
8706
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
Sr.
No:
Case No:
August, 2013
Title of the Case
Date of
Award
1.
22/2012
Shri Pardeep Kumar V/s XEN, HPSEB Shimla.
12-02-2015
2.
96/2010
Shri Hari Ram V/s HPSEB, Shimla.
11-03-2015
3.
20/2012
Shri Hari Singh V/s HPSEB Chopal.
11-03-2015
4.
13/2014
Shri Rakesh Kumar V/S Dagshai Public School, Solan.
10-03-2015
5.
14/2014
Shri Manju Bala V/S –do-
10-03-2015
By order,
Sd/-
Pr. Secretary ( Labour & Employment).
_________
IN THE COURT OF A.S JASWAL, PRESIDING JUDGE, HP INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA
Ref no. 22 of 2012.
Instituted on 31.5.2012.
Decided on. 12.2.2015.
Pradeep Kumar S/o Shri Paras Ram R/o Pragti Kuteer, Shanan New Bhalai, P.O Sanjauli
Shimla (HP).
…Petitioner.
VS.
The Executive Engineer, H.P.S.E.B. Electrical Division, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P.
…Respondent.
Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For petitioner : Shri Rahul Kashyap, Advocate.
For respondent : Shri Ramakant Sharma, Advocate.
AWARD
The reference, for adjudication, is as under:
“Whether termination of the services of Shri Pradeep Kumar S/o Shri Paras Ram R/o
Pragati Kuteer Shanan, new Bhalai, P.O Sanjauli Shimla (HP) by the Executive
Engineer, HPSEB Electricla Division Shimla District Shimla w.e.f. 26.2.1994 without
following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If
not, to what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation
the above workman is entitled to from the above employer?”
8707
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
2. In nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that he was initially engaged as daily waged
beldar, on 26.2.1988, by the respondent and worked as such till 25.5.1988. Again, he was
reengaged on 5.1.1990 and continued till 18.11.1991, when his services were dispensed with
without following the provisions of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as Act). It
is further averred that on 7.6.1994, he had been given assurance by the concerned XEN that he
would be reengaged as and when the work was to be available. However, the needful was not done.
With the hope that he (petitioner) would be reengaged, he had kept on visiting the office of the
respondent board but of no avail. Ultimately, he raised a demand notice on 29.6.2004 but the same
met with rejection on 28.12.2006. Thus, he made a representation to the Hon’ble Chief Minister
and in pursuance to the directions, made in this regard, by the Hon’ble Chief Minister, the
respondent board processed his case. Despite that, the respondent board dilly-dallied in the matter
of his reengagement. Ultimately, on 24.5.2010, he applied under RTI Act and got obtained the
required information which was supplied to him on 1.7.2010. In the information, so supplied, the
respondent board had admitted its mistake to disengage him. It is alleged that the petitioner had
completed 240 days in a calendar year. Thus, his termination was against the mandatory provisions
of the Act especifically sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H. It is further maintained that he is not
gainfully employed. Against this back-drop a prayer has been made for his reengagement, with all
the consequential service benefits, including back wages.
3.
The claim of the petitioner has been contested on having raised various preliminary
objections including maintainability and that the petitioner is estopped from filing this petition due
to his own acts, conduct etc. On merits, it has been asserted that the petitioner, who had been
engaged, as daily waged beldar, on 25.1.1988, had continued to work as such with breaks till
25.5.1988, when he abandoned the job on his own sweet will. He had not completed 240 days in
any calendar year. Thereafter, he was reengaged w.e.f. 26.4.1990 and continued as such till
25.11.1991 when he again abandoned his job. Thereafter, he was reengaged on 10.2.1994 and
continued till 25.3.1994 when he again left his job. The demand notice which had been raised by
the petitioner was rightly rejected by the appropriate government. It is admitted that he had been
supplied information on 1.7.2010. Since, the petitioner had abandoned his job, on his own, there is
no question that his services had been terminated in violation of the provisions of sections 25-F,
25-G and 25-H of the Act. Other allegations denied.
4. By filing rejoinder, the petitioner has reaffirmed his own allegations by denying those
of the respondent.
5. Pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues which were struck on
16.3.2013.
1. Whether the termination of service of petitioner by the respondent with effect
from 26.2.1994 is in violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act,
1947?
OPP…
2. If issue no. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what relief the petitioner is entitled to?
OPR…
3.
Whether this petition is not maintainable as alleged?
OPR…
4. Whether the petitioner has abandoned the job at his own?
OPR…
5. Relief.
8708
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record
of the case carefully.
7.
For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing issues for determination,
my findings on the aforesaid issues are as under.
Issue no. 1 Accordingly in yes.
Issue no. 2 Entitled to reinstatement with seniority and continuity but without back wages.
Issue no. 3 No.
Issue no. 4 No.
Relief.
Reference answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent, per
operative part of award.
Reasons for findings
Issue no.1 & 4.
8. Being interlinked, both these issues are taken up together for discussion and decision.
9. The contention of the petitioner is that his services w.e.f. 26.2.1994, had been
terminated without following the mandatory provisions of the Act. On the other hand, the defence
version is that, on his own, he had abandoned the job.
10. In his affidavit Ex. PW-1/A, the petitioner (PW-1) has supported all the facts as stated
in the petition on all material counts including that on 18.11.1991, his services had been dispensed
with without notice and paying compensation. He also stated that on 7.6.1994, the concerned XEN
had assured to reengage him subject to the availability of work but of no avail. On 29.6.2004, he
had raised a demand notice which was rejected by the appropriate government on 28.12.2006. He
had got obtained an information under the RTI Act, by moving an application, Ex. PW-1/B and that
the same is Ex. PA. He also stated that he is not gainfully employed anywhere. In the cross
examination, he denied that for a specific work, he had been engaged and that he did not complete
240 days in a calendar year. He also denied that, on his own, he had left the job
11. Shri Pratap Singh (RW-1), has stated that the petitioner, on his own, had left the job
on 25.5.1988. He also remained absent from 26.1.1988 to 25.2.1988. From 26.4.1990 to
25.11.1991, he was again reengaged. Ex. R-1 and Ex. R-2, are his mandays chart. In the cross-
examination, he admitted that during 1990 and 1991, the petitioner had completed 240 days. He
expressed his ignorance that the persons, named in mark B, who are junior to the petitioner, were
reengaged or not.
12. From Ex. R-1, mandays chart, it is abundantly clear that w.e.f. 26.4.1990 to 28.3.1991,
the petitioner had worked for 316 days. In his affidavit Ex. PW-1/A, the petitioner has also stated
that on 18.11.1991, his services had been dispensed with. Although, the reference, which has been
made to this Court pertains to the alleged termination of the services of the petitioner w.e.f.
26.2.1994, without following the provisions of the Act, but there is no such record produced by the
respondent that in fact, the petitioner had worked till 26.2.1994, when his services were allegedly
dispensed with. I may mention that even, from Ex. R-2, the mandays chart, it is abundantly clear
that the petitioner had worked till 25.4.1991. Since, in the preceding twelve calendar months he
8709
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
(petitioner) had completed more than 240 days as is evident from Ex. R-2, it was incumbent upon
the respondent to have complied with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. For the failure of
the respondent to have complied with the provisions of the said Act, I have no hesitation to hold
that his termination w.e.f. 25.4.1991, is against the provisions of the Act. Although, the defence
version is to this effect that the petitioner had abandoned the job, on his own, but in the statement
of Shri Pradeep Kumar (RW-1), it has nowhere come that the petitioner, who had allegedly left the
job, had been sent any notice/communication to resume the work. It has been held by our own
Hon’ble High Court in latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 903 State of HP & Others Vs. Bhatag Ram &
Another. that:—
“Plea of abandonment of job- merely raising the plea of abandonment is nothing but has
to be established on the basis of facts. No facts led to substantiate the plea.”
13. For my above discussion and law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court (supra), I have
no hesitation in holding that the services of the petitioner had been terminated/disengaged, illegally
and in an unjustified manner and that too without complying with the provisions of the Act.
Accordingly, my answer to issue no.1 is in “yes” and issue no.4 is in “no”.
Issue no.2
14. The petitioner has claimed his reinstatement with all the consequential service benefits.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has urged with vehemence that having regard to
the short period for which the petitioner had remained engaged, he should be awarded
compensation and not reinstatement. In support of his such contention, he has relied upon (2013) 5
SCC 136, Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and another Vs. Gitam
Singh. However, I am of the view that the manner in which the services of the petitioner had stood
disengaged, he deserves to be reinstated. The services of the petitioner had been terminated on
25.4.1991 but he had raised the demand notice after about 13 years i.e on 29.6.2004. Keeping all
the facts, in mind, it would be in the interest of justice if he is ordered to be reinstated when he had
raised the demand notice i.e w.e.f. 29.6.2004. Accordingly, I order so. As far as grant of back
wages to the petitioner are concerned, I may mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2010 (1)
SLJ S.C 70, M/s Ritu Marbals Vs. Prabhakant Shukla has ruled that “full back wages cannot be
granted mechanically, upon a order of termination be declared illegal. It is further held that
reinstatement must not be accompanied by payment of full back wages even for the period when
the workman remained out of service and contributed little or nothing to the Industry”.
15. Consequently, for what has been stated and observed above, the petitioner is held
entitled to be reinstated in service with seniority and continuity but without back wages from the
date when he raised demand notice i.e w.e.f. 29.6.2004. Thus, my answer to this issue is in “Yes”.
Issue no. 3
16. When, the reference came to be made to this Court, the petitioner filed the statement of
claim. Thus, it cannot be said that this petition is not maintainable. Thus, by holding it to be
maintainable, my answer to this issue is in “no”.
Relief
As a sequel to my discussion/findings on the aforesaid issues, the claim of the petitioner is
partly allowed and as such the respondent is directed to reinstate him with seniority and
continuity but without back wages from the date when he raised demand notice i.e w.e.f.
8710
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
29.6.2004. 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 12th Feb., 2015.
(A.S JASWAL)
Presiding Judge,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla.
_____________
IN THE COURT OF A.S JASWAL, PRESIDING JUDGE, HP INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA.
Ref no. 96 of 2010.
Instituted on 7.8.2010
Decided on. 11.3.2015.
Hari Ram S/o Shri Jathu Ram R/o Vilage Mehri Kathala, P.O Nalti, Tehsil Ghumarwin,
District Bilsapur, H.P.
…Petitioner.
VS.
1. The Secy. HPSEB, Vidyut Bhawan, Shimla-4.
2. The Director, SJVNL (NJPC), BCS New, Shimla, HP.
…Respondents.
Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For petitioner:
Shri R.K Khidta,, Advocate.
For respondent No.1:
Shri Ramakant Sharma, Advocate.
For respondent No.2:
Shri S.D Sharma, Advocate.
AWARD
The reference, for adjudication, is as under:
“Whether termination of the services of Shri Hari Ram S/o Shri Jathu Ram by the
above employers w.e.f. 30.4.1991 (F.N) without complying the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and clause 14 of the Certified Standing Orders of the
HPSEB, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief of service benefits including
reinstatement, arrear of back wages and compensation the above named workman is
entitled to from the above employers?”
2. In nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that he was engaged as driver by the respondent
in the office of Assistant Engineer, Nathpa Jhakri (E) P&M, Sub Division Dhalli, Shimla-12 w.e.f.
1.5.1989 and worked as such till 30.4.1991, continuously. In fact, on 20.4.1991, said Assistant
Engineer had served him notice whereby his services stood terminated/retrenched w.e.f. 30.4.1991.
Immediately, after having been served with said notice, dated 20.4.1991, he filed OA no. 537/1991,
before the Hon’ble Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred as Tribunal), on 29.4.1991, and
8711
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
the same was allowed vide order dated 2.6.2000. Since, respondent no.1, had felt aggrieved by the
said judgment, a writ petition was filed before the Hon’ble High Court, registered as CWP No.
805/2000, in which the judgment of the Tribunal was set aside, as per judgment passed on
17.12.2004, mainly on the ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
However, the Hon’ble High Court had given liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate
authority under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as Act). It is
further averred that after the passing of judgment of the Hon’ble High Court, the petitioner filed
demand notice before the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Shimla but the conciliation
proceedings failed and thus a reference was caused to be made to this Court. In the order/judgment
dated 2.6.2000, passed by the Tribunal, the termination of the petitioner had been set aside on the
ground that the mandatory provisions of the Act as well as clause 14 of the HPSEB Standing
Orders were violated. It is further averred that the petitioner had completed 240 days in each
calendar year to the satisfaction of the respondents. After his illegal termination, he had continued
to visit the office of the Assistant Engineer, number of times but of no avail. It is further averred
that the respondents have also engaged new persons without calling the petitioner. Since, the
services of the petitioner had been terminated in violation of the provisions of section 25-F, 25-G,
25-H and 25-N of the Act as well as Standing Orders of the HPSEB, he deserves to be reinstated
with all the consequential service benefits including full back wages and regularization.
3. The claim of the petitioner has been contested by respondent no.1 on having raised
various preliminary objections including maintainability, limitation and that it is bad for non-
joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties because w.e.f. 1.8.1991, all assets, works, liabilities as
well as staff working for Nathpa Jhakri Project stood transferred and vested in NJPC (now known
as SJVN) which being an independent legal entity is a necessary party. On merits, it has been sated
that at the relevant time, NJPC known as SJVNL was part and parcel of HPSEB but now since
1.8.1991, it is an independent body and working as joint venture under State and Central
governments. The petitioner had been engaged as daily waged driver purely on temporary basis till
the appointment of regular driver, who joined his post on 30.4.1991. It is further pleaded that the
services of the petitioner had been terminated after serving due notice and offering payment in lieu
of notice for retrenchment, wages for such period as the notice fell short of one month, along-with
the retrenchment compensation, in terms of the provisions of the Act but he failed to accept the
same. It is further reiterated that in view of the posting of the new incumbent, the services of the
petitioner were no longer required. As far as the provisions of Standing Orders are concerned, those
are not applicable in the organization of the replying respondent. Annexure RA-6, is the copy of
order dated 31.7.1991, transferring all the assets and liabilities to the NJPC. Since, the
disengagement of the petitioner w.e.f. 30.4.1991, had been made by the competent authority, in
accordance with law, therefore, such action is perfectly legal and warrants no interference. Other
allegations either admitted or denied.
4. Respondent no.2, also contested the claim of the petitioner by raising preliminary
objection qua maintainability. On merits, it has been stated that well before 1.8.1991, when the
SJVN (respondent no.2) came into being, as an independent entity, the services of the petitioner
had already stood terminated by respondent no.1. It is further averred that HPSEB rules and
regulations continue to govern the service conditions of those employees who had been transferred
to SJVN Ltd. Since, the replying respondent had not in any way involved in the engagement or
retrenchment of the services of the petitioner, no relief can be claimed against it. Other allegations
denied.
5. By filing rejoinders, the petitioner has reaffirmed his own allegations by denying those
of the respondents.
8712
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
6. Pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues which were struck on
2.4.2011.
1. Whether the services of the workman Hari Ram have been terminated in an illegal
manner without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and
standing orders of the respondent Board as alleged?
OPP…
2. If issue no. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioner workman is entitled for
reinstatement, back wages and other statutory benefits as prayed?
OPP…
3. Whether this claim petition is not maintainable?
OPR…
4. Relief.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record
of the case carefully.
8. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing issues for determination,
my findings on the aforesaid issues are as under.
Issue no.1 Accordingly in yes.
Issue no.2 Entitled to reinstatement with seniority and continuity but without back
wages.
Issue no.3. Yes against respondent no.2.
Relief. Reference answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent
No.1, per operative part of award.
Reasons for findings
Issue no.1 & 2.
9. Being interlinked and interconnected, both these issues are taken up together for
discussion and decision.
10. It has been specifically stated by the petitioner that consequent upon notice, dated
20.4.1991, his services had stood terminated w.e.f. 30.4.1991 in violation of the provisions of the
Act. The plea of respondent no.1 is that on having complied with the provisions of the Act, the
services of the petitioner had been legally terminated. Since, a regular incumbent/driver had joined
his duties w.e.f. 1.5.1991, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The stand taken by respondent
no.2 is that on 1.8.1991, when it come into being, as an independent entity, neither the services of
the petitioner had been transferred to it nor it, in any manner, had played role as far as his
termination w.e.f. 30.4.1991 was concerned.
11. The petitioner (PW-1) in his affidavit has reaffirmed the allegations as made in the
petition on all material counts including that he had completed 240 days in each calendar year
before his services were terminated in violation of the provisions of the Act. He categorically stated
8713
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
that the notice which had been issued to him, was not proper. Without calling him back to join
service, the respondents have engaged new persons. In the cross-examination, he stated that w.e.f.
1.8.1991, NJPC (project) is known as SJVN. As far as HPSEB and NJPC are concerned, those are
separate entities. He denied that on 1.5.1991, he had been issued notice of termination of services
with wages of one month vide mark X and that he refused to receive the same. He denied that on
30.4.1991, Shri Harish Chander, joined as regular driver. He admitted that after bifurcation, there
was no liability of HPSEB. When cross-examined on behalf of respondent no.2, he admitted that
when he was appointed, Nathpa Jhakri Project was being executed by HPSEB. He further admitted
that he had been appointed by the Board and his services had been terminated by it (Board).
12. Shri Deepak Chauhan (PW-2), stated that he could not bring the summoned record
pertaining to Hari Ram (petitioner) because the same is not available with the Board for the reason
that it already stood transferred/sent to NJPC on 1.8.1991. In OA No. 537/1991, in which
Electricity Board was a party, its stand was that the petitioner was its worker. The petitioner had
worked continuously from 1.5.1989 to 30.4.1991. On being cross-examined on behalf of
respondent no.1, he admitted that HPSEB, after 1.8.1991, had no control of the workers who were
employees of NJPC. When, cross-examined on behalf of respondent no.2, he admitted that SJVN
came into existence on 1.8.1991 and that the petitioner had been engaged by the Board which
terminated his services. He further admitted that the employees/workers who had come on the rolls,
of SJVNL, from the Board, on secondment basis, their list had been prepared. In that list, the name
of the petitioner did not figure.
13. Shri Jagat Ram (RW-1) has stated that on 1.5.1989, the petitioner was engaged as
driver on daily wages basis and that he worked, till 30.4.1991, continuously. In order to retrench
the services of the petitioner, he had been issued notice dated 20.4.1991, which is mark A. The
petitioner had been paid retrenchment compensation. HPSEB and SJVNL are separate entities. In
the cross-examination, he admitted that NJPC (project) and its offices were being run by HPSEB
till 31.7.1991. The petitioner who had been engaged by HPSEB in Nathpa Jhakri Project, was
disengaged by HPSEB on 30.4.1991. Only that staff had been transferred from NJPC to SJVNL
which had been in service on 31.7.1991. On having ben cross-examined, on behalf of respondent
no.1, he stated that he has brought no such record on the basis of which it could be said that the
petitioner had completed 240 days. The services of the petitioner had been terminated on the basis
of the notice dated 20.4.1991, the copy of which is Ex. RX. The Board has its standing orders. He
admitted that on 20.4.1991, the provisions of the Act were applicable to Electricity Board. He
admitted that if a worker had to be terminated, he was required to be given one month’s notice. The
petitioner had not been issued one month’s notice. He also admitted that along-with notice dated
20.4.1991, no compensation had been paid/sent to the petitioner. He further admitted that the work
which the petitioner was performing is still available with the Board, NJPC and SJVNL.
14. Shri Surender Sharma (RW-2) who has appeared as a witness, on behalf of respondent
no.2, has stated that SJVNL started running the Project, which was being earlier run by NJPC,
w.e.f. 1.8.1991 vide notification, Ex. RW-1/C. The employees who had been working with NJPC
till 31.7.1991 were transferred to SJVNL. The services of the petitioner had never been transferred
to SJVNL for the reason that the same stood already retrenched by the HPSEB on 30.4.1991. In the
cross-examination, he admitted that even today, the work of driver is available in SJVNL.
15. From the evidence, which has been referred to above, it is abundantly clear that the
provisions of the Act were applicable to HPSEB on 20.4.1991, when a notice for the termination of
the petitioner was issued. It has been admitted by Shri Jagat Ram (RW-1) that one month’s notice
was required to be issued to the petitioner for terminating his services. It has been stated by the
petitioner that he had completed 240 days in each calendar year before his termination. PW-2, Shri
Deepak Chauhan has stated that the petitioner had continuously worked from 1.5.1989 to
8714
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
30.4.1991. Since, from the evidence, on record, it stands proved that before his termination, the
petitioner had completed 240 days, respondent no.1 (HPSEB) was required to have complied with
the provisions of section 25-F of the Act before terminating his services w.e.f. 30.4.1991. Since, the
mandatory provisions of the Act had not been complied by respondent no.1 before terminating the
services of the petitioner, I hold his termination w.e.f. 30.4.1991 to be illegal and unjustified.
16. Now, the question arises as to what service benefits the petitioner is entitled to. I may
mention that from the record, it is clearly borne out that the services of the petitioner had come to
be retrenched /terminated w.e.f. 30.4.1991. Although, a plea has been taken by respondent no.1,
that, when SJVNL came into being, as a separate entity, the services of the employees of
HPSEB/NJPC, stood transferred to it. Since, the services of the petitioner had already stood
terminated w.e.f. 30.4.1991, he was not transferred to SJVNL. It has been specifically stated by
PW-2 (Deepak Chauhan) that the employees/workers who had been transferred to SJVNL, their list
had been prepared and in that list the name of the petitioner did not figure. When, the services of
the petitioner had not been terminated by respondent no.2, it cannot be directed to reinstate him.
As, the services of the petitioner had been illegally terminated by respondent no.1 (HPSEB) w.e.f.
30.4.1991, it is duty bound to reinstate him w.e.f. 1.5.1991. As far as grant of back wages to the
petitioner are concerned, I may mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2010 (1) SLJ S.C 70,
M/s Ritu Marbals Vs. Prabhakant Shukla has ruled that “full back wages cannot be granted
mechanically, upon a order of termination be declared illegal. It is further held that
reinstatement must not be accompanied by payment of full back wages even for the period when
the workman remained out of service and contributed little or nothing to the Industry”.
17. The petitioner has also claimed regularization in service. His such claim cannot be
looked into by this Court because as far as his regularization is concerned, it is to be ordered by the
department concerned as per the Policy of the State Government regarding regularization of daily
wagers.
18. Consequently, for what has been stated and observed above, the petitioner is held
entitled to be reinstated in service with seniority and continuity but without back wages w.e.f.
1.5.1991. Thus, both these issues are answered accordingly.
Issue no. 3
19. An objection has been taken by the respondents that this petition is not legally
maintainable. I may mention that as far as the maintainability of this petition against respondent
no.2, is concerned, it cannot be said to be legally maintainable against it because at the relevant
time neither the petitioner had been engaged by it, on 1.5.1989, nor his services were terminated by
it w.e.f. 30.4.1991 consequent upon the notice dated 20.4.1991. Thus, I hold that although this
petition is legally maintainable against respondent no.1, it is not maintainable against respondent
no.2. Thus, this issue is answered accordingly.
Relief
As a sequel to my discussion/findings on the aforesaid issues, the claim of the petitioner is
partly allowed and as such respondent no.1 (HPSEB) is directed to reinstate him with seniority
and continuity but without back wages w.e.f. 1.5.1991. Let a copy of this award be sent to the
appropriate government for publication in official gazette. File, after completion be consigned to
records.
8715
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
Announced in the open court today this day of 11th March, 2015.
(A.S JASWAL),
Presiding Judge,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla.
_________
IN THE COURT OF A.S JASWAL, PRESIDING JUDGE, HP INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA.
Ref no. 20 of 2012.
Instituted on 31.5.2012
Decided on. 11.3.2015.
Hari Singh S/o Sh. Kumbia Ram R/O Village Thundara, P.O. Malot, Tehsil Chopal, Distt.
Shimla, H.P.
… Petitioner.
VS.
The Executive Engineer, H.P.S.E.B. Electrical Division, Chopal, District Shimla, H.P.
..Respondent.
Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For petitioner :
Shri Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate.
For respondent :
Shri Ramakant Sharma, Advocate.
AWARD
The reference, for adjudication, is as under:
“Whether termination of the services of Shri Hari Singh S/O Sh. Kumbia Ram R/O
Village Thundara, P.O. Malot, Tehsil Chopal, Distt. Shimla HP by the Executive
Engineer, H.P.S.E.B. Electrical Division, Chopal, Distt. Shimla. w.e.f. 25.1.1990
without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and
justified ? If not, to what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and
compensation the above workman is entitled to from the above employer?”
2. In nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that he was employed as daily waged beldar on
26.12.1985 in the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, Electric Division, Nerwa under the
Electric Division Theog. In the year, 1990, a new division was created namely HPSEB, Chopal and
after the creation of new division, his services were transferred to HPSEb Sub Division Nerwa
(now Kupvi) under the HPSEB Electric Division, Chopal. To the satisfaction of his superiors, he
had been performing his duties honestly and sincerely. It is further averred that he had been
working continuously and uninterruptedly except some fictional breaks. However, on 25.1.1990, he
was orally told by the concerned Assistant Engineer that his services were no longer required and
as such he was not to come for duties w.e.f. 26.1.1990. In this way, his services were terminated
without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as
8716
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
Act) as well as Standing Orders framed and notified by the respondent board. Even, the principles
of First come Last go was not followed. It is further averred that at the time of his disengagement, it
was told that he would be called back/reengaged as and when work was to be available. Thereafter,
he continued to visit the office of SDO concerned with the request to reengage him but of no avail.
In the year, 1996, he came to know that many fresh persons namely S/Shri Ram Lal, Lachhi Ram,
Dharam Singh and Ratti Ram had been engaged by the competent authority in Sub Division
HPSEB Kupvi. Since, he had not been called for reemployment, he visited the office of the
respondent with the request to reengage him but the needful was not done. In these circumstances,
he was compelled to approach the Hon’ble High Court by filing Civil Writ Petition which was
registered as CWP no. 962/1996 titled as Hari Singh Vs. HPSEB, which was disposed of vide
judgment dated 1.8.1996 whereby he (petitioner) was afforded opportunity to file representation
within three weeks to his employer who (employer) was to dispose of the same within four weeks.
In compliance to the directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court, he submitted a detailed
representation to the respondent board in which he submitted his termination to be in utter violation
of the provisions of section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act as well as Standing Orders, framed and
notified by the respondent. However, without looking the factual position as well as legal
submission, made by the petitioner, his representation was rejected. Thereafter, he served a demand
notice on the competent authority and during conciliation proceedings, Executive Engineer,
HPSEB Chopal, filed detailed reply wherein it was averred that the services of the petitioner were
never terminated but he had left the same on his own. In that reply, the employer had admitted that
after his termination, many fresh persons had been engaged without calling the petitioner to join
duties. Since, the conciliation proceedings had failed, a report, in this regard, was made to the
Labour Commissioner Himachal Pradesh under section 12 of the Act. It is averred that the Labour
Commissioner, without having appreciated the facts, declined the making of reference, mainly on
the ground of delay, vide letter dated 1.2.2002. On having felt aggrieved, with the action of the
Labour Commissioner, he (petitioner) approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing Civil Writ
Petition, CWP no. 508 of 2002, which was allowed vide judgment dated 21.5.2007. Against the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, dated 21.5.2007, an LPA bearing no. 157 of 2007,
was filed which was dismissed vide judgment dated 29.3.2012. In this way, a reference was caused
to be made to this Court by the appropriate government. It is averred that since, his services had
been terminated in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act, especially, 25-F, 25-G and
25-H, he deserves to be reengaged/reinstated with all the consequential service benefits including
back wages.
3. The claim of the petitioner has been contested on having raised various preliminary
objections including maintainability, barred by time and also that the claim raised by the petitioner
suffers from latches. On merits, it has been asserted that the petitioner who had been initially
engaged as daily waged beldar, on muster roll w.e.f. 26.3.1986 had worked as such up to 25.1.1990
under Electric Sub Division, Kupvi under the administrative control of Electric Division, HPSEB
Theog with certain interruptions/breaks. Further, he had never completed 240 days in any calendar
year. It is further averred that the services of the petitioner had never been terminated by the
replying respondent. In fact, on his own, he had left the job by not turning after 25.1.1990. Since,
he had not completed 240 days of continuous service, he had not acquired the status of temporary
workman, under the provisions of the Act, to entitle him for the service of notice as well as
payment of retrenchment compensation. Although, no fresh hands were engaged but three persons
namely S/Shri Ram Lal, Lachhi Ram and Dharam Singh had to be reengaged in pursuance of the
orders/directions passed by the Labour Court. It is further averred that from 1990 till 1996, the
petitioner never raised any dispute. Other allegations either admitted or denied.
4. Pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues which were struck on
5.9.2013.
8717
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
1. Whether the termination of service of petitioner with effect from 25.1.1990
without following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is illegal and
unjustified as alleged?
OPP…
2. If issue no. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what benefits the petitioner is entitled
to?
OPR…
3. Relief.
5.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record
of the case carefully.
6.
For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing issues for determination, my
findings on the aforesaid issues are as under.
Issue no.1
Accordingly in yes.
Issue no.2
Entitled to reinstatement w.e.f. 1.1.1996 but without back
wages.
Relief.
Reference answered in favour of the petitioner and against the
respondent, per operative part of award.
Reasons for findings
Issue no. 1.
7.
It has been very specifically stated by the petitioner that his services had been
terminated/disengaged w.e.f. 25.1.1990, by the respondent, without having complied with the
mandatory provisions of the Act. On the other hand, the stand taken by the respondent is to this
effect that since the petitioner, on his own, had left the job on 25.1.1990, and that he had not
remained in continuous service for 240 days in any of the calendar years, there was no necessity to
have complied with the requirements of section 25-F of the Act. The stand of the respondent
regarding fresh engagements is that three persons, as named above, had to be reengaged on the
orders of this Court.
8.
In his affidavit Ex. PW-1/A, the petitioner (PW-1) has supported the facts as stated in
the petition on all material counts including that on 25.1.1990, his services had been orally
terminated by the concerned SDO. He also stated that in the year, 1996, when he came to know that
fresh persons had been employed by the competent authority, without having given him preference,
he again visited the office of his employer with the request to reengage him but of no avail. The
persons, who had been engaged after his disengagement are S/Shri Ram Lal, Lachi Ram, Dharam
Singh and Ratti Ram. Since, his services had been terminated in violation of the provisions of the
Act, he deserves to be reengaged with all the consequential benefits. Ex. Pw-1/B, is the reply to his
demand notice. Copy of his mandays chart is Ex. PW-1/C. Ex. PW-1/F, is the copy of CWP No.
508 of 2002. Ex. Pw-1/G, is the copy of LPA no. 157 of 2007. In every calendar year, he had
completed 240 days. In the cross-examination, he denied that he used to remain absent from duties
and that his services were never terminated. After 25.1.1990, he was not called for job.
9. Shri Sita Ram (PW-2) has stated from the summoned record that Ex. PW-2/A, is the
copy of the mandays chart of the petitioner as per which, he (petitioner) had been engaged on
26.12.1985, on muster roll. When, his services were terminated, neither any notice was issued nor
8718
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
he was paid compensation. From 26.1.1987 till 25.12.1987, the petitioner had worked for 309 days,
which has also been shown in Ex. PW-1/C. Juniors, to the petitioner, namely Lachhi Ram, Dharam
Singh and Ratti Ram have been regularized. The status of Shri Ram Lal who is also junior to the
petitioner is that of work charge. The department had terminated the services of the petitioner
orally. Ex. PW-1/G, is the copy of the judgment of LPA, which has been filed by the department.
Ex. PW-2/A has been prepared on the basis of muster roll register. Ex. PW-2/B is the mandays
chart upto 1990. In the cross-examination, he stated that as per the summoned record, Hari Singh
(petitioner) had been engaged on 26.12.1985 as beldar on muster roll. Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. PW 1/E,
have not been prepared by him. He denied that no junior to the petitioner has been in service of the
respondent.
10. Shri Vijay Kumar (RW-1) has stated that the petitioner, who had been engaged as daily
waged beldar on 26.3.1986, had worked till 25.1.1990. In no calendar year, he had completed 240
days. The department had not terminated the services of the petitioner who, on his own, had left the
job on 25.1.1990 and thereafter, did not turn up. Since, the petitioner had himself, left the job, there
was no necessity to issue him notice and to pay compensation. The department has not engaged any
person junior to the petitioner. Who-so-ever have been engaged, those were engaged on the orders
of the Court. In the cross-examination, he admitted that after 25.1.1990, the department had
engaged other persons on daily wages. Self-stated that, they had been engaged on the orders of the
Court. He admitted that on 25.1.1990, the services of the petitioner had been terminated, orally. He
further admitted that at present there is work available with the department in Electric Sub Division
Kupvi.
11. From the evidence, which has been referred to above, it is abundantly clear that the
petitioner has failed to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a calendar year preceding his
alleged termination. It has been specifically stated by Shri Vijay Kumar (RW-1), that in no calendar
year, the petitioner had completed 240 days. In my considered view, the petitioner has failed to
prove that he has completed 240 days in a calendar year preceding his termination. To claim benefit
under section 25-F of the Act, it was upon the petitioner to have established that prior to his
termination, he had completed 240 days. It has been held in 2009 (120) FLR 1007 an Civil Appeal
no. 4468 of 2005 of Hon’ble Supreme Court incase titled as Relip Nagarpalika Vs. Babuji
Gabhaji Thakore and others that:
“The burden of proof lies on the workman to show that he had worked continuously for
240 days for the preceding one year and it is for the workman to adduce evidence apart
from examining himself to prove the factum of being in employment of the employer.”
Since, the petitioner has failed to prove that he had worked continuously for 240 days in the
preceding one year from the date of his termination, his alleged termination cannot be said to be in
contravention of the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. The evidence further goes to show that
after 25.1.1990, when the services of the petitioner were terminated, the department has engaged
new persons as named above. If new persons were required to be engaged, the department
concerned was required to call the petitioner to join duties in compliance with the mandatory
provisions of the Act. On the record, there is no such document, which may go to show that when
persons junior to the petitioner were engaged, any notice had been issued to him to join his job.
Since, the petitioner has proved, on record, that persons junior to him, as named above, have been
engaged by the respondent after his termination, his termination w.e.f. 25.1.1990, deserves to be
held as illegal and in violation of the provisions of the Act. It has been held by our own Hon’ble
High Court, incase titled as State of HP & Others V/s Bhatag Ram & Anr. as reported in latest
HLJ 2007 (HP) 903. that :-
8719
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
“Continuing of 240 days is not necessary in 12 calendar months. It is not necessary to
workman to complete 240 days during 12 months for taking the benefits of section 25-G
& 25-H of the Act.”
12. The defence version is to this effect that the petitioner, on his own, had left the job but
in support thereof, there is no evidence at all. I may mention that if the petitioner had left the job,
on his own, it was incumbent upon the respondent to have issued him notice to join his duties. No
such document has been brought, on record, which may go to show that any such notice had been
issued to the petitioner.
13. For my above discussion and law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court (supra), I have
no hesitation in holding that the services of the petitioner had been terminated/disengaged, illegally
and in an unjustified manner and that too without complying with the provisions of the Act
especially sections 25-G and 25-H. Accordingly, my answer to this issue is in “Yes”.
Issue no. 2
14. The petitioner has claimed his reinstatement with all the consequential service benefits
including back wages. The evidence, on record, goes to show that the services of the petitioner
were terminated, orally, on 25.1.1990 but he pursued his case seriously in the year, 1996 when he
came to know that fresh persons had been given employment by the competent authority. Although,
it is his version that he had kept on going/visiting the concerned office for his reengagement but
there is no cogent evidence, in this regard, on the record,. In case, he had been visiting the
concerned office, he was required to have moved some application for his reengagement. In the
absence of such, I am of the view that only in the year, 1996, the petitioner had taken recourse for
his reengagement. I may mention that only in the year, 1996, he had filed CWP no. 962 of 1996
titled as Hari Singh Vs. HPSEB in the Hon’ble High Court, in which, it had been ordered that he
was to file representation before respondent no.1 which was to be decided within four weeks.
Since, the petitioner has failed to prove that w.e.f. 25.1.1990, till 1996, he had taken steps for his
reengagement, I am of the opinion that he should be ordered to be reengagement from the year,
1996 i.e. w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Accordingly, I order so. As far as grant of back wages to the petitioner are
concerned, I may mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2010 (1) SLJ S.C 70, M/s Ritu
Marbals Vs. Prabhakant Shukla has ruled that “full back wages cannot be granted mechanically,
upon a order of termination be declared illegal. It is further held that reinstatement must not be
accompanied by payment of full back wages even for the period when the workman remained out
of service and contributed little or nothing to the Industry”.
15. Consequently, for what has been stated and observed above, the petitioner is held
entitled to be reinstated in service with seniority and continuity but without back wages w.e.f.
1.1.1996. Thus, my answer to this issue is in “Yes”.
Relief
As a sequel to my discussion/findings on the aforesaid issues, the claim of the petitioner is
partly allowed and as such the respondents are directed to reinstate him with seniority and
continuity but without back wages w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Let a copy of this award be sent to the
appropriate government for publication in official gazette. File, after completion be consigned to
records.
Announced in the open court today this day of 11th March, 2015.
(A.S JASWAL),
Presiding Judge,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla.
8720
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
Ref.13/2014
RAKESH KUMAR V/S DAGSHAI PUBLIC SCHOOL, SOLAN
18/3/2015
Present:- Sh. Niranjan Verma Adv. for the petitioner.
Sh. V.K.Gupta AR for the respondent.
It has been stated by Shri Niranjan Verma, Advocate for the petitioner that already a
compromise has been effected between the parties. He further stated that consequent upon the
compromise, so effected between the parties, the petitioner does not want to proceed with his claim,
arising out of the reference which has been made to this court by the appropriate government.
Since I am satisfied that a lawful compromise has already been effected between parties, I
proceed to record the statement of Sh. Niranjan Verma , Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri V.K.Gupta , AR for the respondent has also admitted the compromise to be correct and
acceptable in terms of the statement made by Shri Niranjan verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
The reference, which has been made to his Court, is as under:-
“Whether termination of the services of Shri Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Hari Nand R/o
Village Anhech, P.O dagshai, Tehsil & District Solan, HP w.e.f. 18.8.2012 who was
employed as Mali-cum-Chowkidar by the Employer/Director, Dagshai Public School
Cantt, District Solan, HP without complying with the provisions of the industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified ?If not , what amount of back wages, seniority,
past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above
employer?”
Since, in terms of statement of Shri Niranjan verma, Advocate for the petitioner, a
compromise/ Settlement has already been effected between the parties, which has also been
admitted to be correct and acceptable by Shri V.K.Gupta , AR for the respondent, this reference
which has been made to this Court stands disposed of to have been compromise. The statement of
Shri Niranjan Verma, Advocate for the petitioner shall form part and parcel of this order/ awards.
Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the appropriate government for publication in the official
gazette. File, after completion, be consigned to records.
Announced
10.03.2015
Presiding Judge,
Labour court, Shimla.
8721
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
Ref. 14/2014
SMT MANJU BALA V/S DAGSHAI PUBLIC SCHOOL, SOLAN
18/3/2015
Present:- Sh. Niranjan Verma Adv. for the petitioner.
Sh. V.K.Gupta AR for the respondent.
It has been stated by Shri Niranjan Verma, Advocate for the petitioner that already a
compromise has been effected between the parties. He further stated that consequent upon the
compromise, so effected between the parties, the petitioner does not want to proceed with his claim,
arising out of the reference which has been made to this court by the appropriate government,
Since I am satisfied that a lawful compromise has already been effected between parties, I
proceed to record the statement of Sh. Niranjan Verma , Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri V.K. Gupta , AR for the respondent has also admitted the compromise to be correct and
acceptable in terms of the statement made by Shri Niranjan verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
The reference, which has been made to his Court, is as under:-
“Whether termination of the services of Shri Smt Manju Bala W/o Sh Rakesh Kumar
R/o Village Anhech, P.O Dagshai, Tehsil & District Solan, HP w.e.f. 18.8.2012 who was
employed as Peon by the Employer/Director, Dagshai Public School Cantt, District
Solan, HP without complying with the provisions of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is
legal and justified ? If not , what amount of back wages, seniority , past service benefits
and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employer?”
Since, in terms of statement of Shri Niranjan verma, Advocate for the petitioner , a
compromise/ Settlement has already been effected between the parties, which has also been
admitted to be correct and acceptable by Shri V.K.Gupta , AR for the respondent, this reference
which has been made to this Court stands disposed of to have been compromise. The statement of
Shri Niranjan Verma, Advocate for the petitioner shall form part and parcel of this order/ awards.
Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the appropriate government for publication in the official
gazette. File , after completion, be consigned to records.
Announced
10.03.2015
Presiding Judge,
Labour court, Shimla.
8722
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATION
Shimla, the 10th March, 2016
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
Shimla on the website of the Department of Labour & Employment Government of Himachal
Pradesh:—
By order,
Sd/-
Pr. Secretary ( Lab. & Emp.) .
Sr. No.
Case No.
Title of the Case
Date of Award
1.
34/2013
Sh. Shyam Singh V/s M/s Allied Nippon Ltd.
29-02-2016
2.
35/2014
Sh. Baldev V/S Registrar Maharishi Markenday
University.
17-02-2016
3.
61/2012
Sh. Dev Raj V/s Neck Pharmaceuticals Kasuli.
27-02-2016
4.
07/2014
Sh. Mukesh Kumar V/S M/s Link Utsav Ventures.
29-02-2016
5.
27/2015
Sh. Lalit Kumar V/S Devyani Food Industries.
25-02-2016
6.
11/2014
Sh. Mohit Gautam V/S Link Utsav Ventures.
26-02-2016
7.
21/2014
Sh. Bhagwan Dass V/S Dr. Y.S. Parmar.
29-02-2016
By order,
Sd/-
Pr. Secretary (Lab. & Emp.).
___________
29.2.2016
Present: None for petitioner.
Shri Rupesh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.
Today, this case has been listed for the service of the petitioner. As per report,the notice
issued for the service of the petitioner has been received back duly served but he has failed to
appear before this Court. The record reveals that on 4.7.2014 the petitioner appeared before this
Court in person and thereafter on 4.8.2014, 6.9.2014, 17.11.2014, 8.12.2014 and 17.1.2015, Shri
Amit Tanwar, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner but he has failed to file any
claim petition. Thereafter, on subsequent dates none appeared on behalf of the petitioner and
various notices have been issued to him and he has failed to put in appearance before this Court
8723
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
despite having been duly served for today which shows that the petitioner is not interested to pursue
his case. Hence, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the reference on the basis
of material whichever is available on file and to further adjourn the case would be futile exercise.
In the light of aforesaid facts, it appears that at present the petitioner is not interested to
pursue his claim. The following reference qua the miscellaneous demandsraised by the petitioner
union was received from appropriate government for adjudication:
“Whether miscellaneous demands raised vide demand notice dated 9.12.2011 (copy
enclosed) by Shri Shyam Singh and 42 others co-workers of M/s Allied Nippon Ltd.,
C/o Shri Om Dutt Sharma President CITU R/o Sheel Cottage, VPO Taksal, Parwanoo
District solan, HP to be fulfilled by the Occupier/Factory Manager of the Allied
Nippon Ltd., Plot no. 77, Sector-1, Parwanoo District Solan, HP (present address) and
no. 1006, Akash Deep Building Barakhamba Road Connaught Place, New Dehli
110001) corporate office) are legal and justified and maintainable? If yes what relief
and benefits the above workers are entitled to from the above management/occupier?”
In the absence of any claim petition and evidence on behalf of petitioner, it cannot be held
miscellaneous demands raised vide demand notice dated 9.12.2011 by the petitioner union are legal
and justified. Hence, the reference is answered against the petitioner and the award is passed
accordingly. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to agitate the miscellaneous demands
raised vide demand notice dated 9.12.2011 by filing an application before this Court in order to
revive the reference. 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:
29.2.2016.
(Sushil Kukreja),
Presiding Judge,
Labour Court, Shimla.
____________
17.2.2016
Present:
Shri NiranjanVerma, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Mohit Gupta, AR for respondent.
Today, also no claim petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. It may be pertinent
to mention here that this case is being listed for filing of claim since 22.8.2014 and various
opportunities have been afforded to the petitioner to file claim but the same has not been filed.
Since, the petitioner has failed to file any claim despite opportunities, hence, this Court is left with
no other alternative but to decide the reference on the basis of material whatsoever available on the
file. The following reference has been received from the appropriate government for adjudication:
“Whether transfer of Shri Baldev Singh S/o Shri Mohan Lal R/o Village DharBanar,
P.O Bhojnagar, Tehsil & District Solan, HP w.e.f. 18.1.2012 from Maharishi
Markandeshwar University Kumarhatti to Maharishi Markandeshwar University,
Mulana (Ambala) by the Registrar Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Sultanpur
8724
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
Road, Kumarhatti District Solan, HP during the pendency of proceedings regarding
miscellaneous demands notice dated 12.12.2011 without taking expressed permission
in writing of the authority before which the proceedings were pending i.eLabour
Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, Solan in violation of the provisions of section 33 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as transferring against the principle of
natural justice are legal and justified? If not, what amount of back-wages, seniority,
past service benefits and from which date the above worker is entitled to from the
above employer?”
As per reference received from the appropriate government, the petitioner has alleged his
transfer from Maharishi Markandeshwar University Kumarhatti to Maharishi Markandeshwar
University, Mulana (Ambala) by the Registrar Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Sultanpur
Road, Kumarhatti District Solan, HP during the pendency of proceedings regarding miscellaneous
demands notice dated 12.12.2011 without taking expressed permission in writing of the authority
before which the proceedings were pending i.eLabour Officer-cum- Conciliation Officer, Solan in
violation of the provisions of section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as transferring
against the principle of natural justice to be illegal and unjustified but the petitioner has failed to
file any claim in support thereof. Moreover, the petitioner has also failed to lead any evidence
before this Court in order to show that he was illegally transferred from Maharishi Markandeshwar
University Kumarhatti to Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Mulana (Ambala) by the Registrar
Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Sultanpur Road, Kumarhatti District Solan, HP during the
pendency of proceedings regarding miscellaneous demands notice dated 12.12.2011 without taking
expressed permission in writing of the authority before which the proceedings were pending
i.eLabour Officer-cum- Conciliation Officer, Solan in violation of the provisions of section 33 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as transferring against the principle of natural justice.
Hence, in the absence of any claim petition/ evidence on record, the reference is answered against
the petitioner. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the appropriate government for publication
in the official gazette. File, after completion, be consigned to records.
Announced:
17.2.2016.
(Sushil Kukreja),
Presiding Judge
Labour Court, Shimla.
______________
27.2.2016.
Present:
Shri NiranjanVerma, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate with Shri Gurpreet Singh, partner of respondent
company for respondent.
It has been stated by Shri Gurpreet Singh, Partner of respondent company that he is ready
and willing to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each to all the nine petitioners as a full & final settlement of
the claim vide reference petition no. 61 of 2012. The said amount will be paid within 45 days from
today and if the amount is not paid within the aforesaid period then the same shall carry interest @
9% per annum from the date of the order and the reference petition be decided accordingly.
8725
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he is authorized by the petitioners to enter
into a compromise on their behalf with the respondent. He further stated that the statement of Shri
Gurpreet Singh is acceptable to all the petitioners and as such the reference be decided accordingly.
The statements of S/Shri NiranjanVerma, Advocate and Gurpreet Singh, Partner of respondent’s
company recorded separately.
In view of the statements of Shri NiranjanVerma, Advocate and Shri Gurpreet Singh,
Partner of respondent company, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties before
this Court. The respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each to all the nine petitioners
within 45 days from today otherwise the same shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date
of passing of this order till the realization of the aforesaid amount. The reference is ordered to be
answered accordingly. The statements of Shri NiranjanVerma, Advocate and Shri Gurpreet Singh,
Partner of respondent company shall form part of this order/award. Let a copy of this order/award
be sent to the appropriate government for publication in the official gazette. File, after completion,
be consigned to records.
Announced:
27.2.2016.
(Sushil Kukreja),
Presiding Judge,
Labour Court, Shimla.
____________
29.2.2016.
Present:
None .
Case called several times but none appeared on behalf of the parties. It is 10:45
AM. Be called again.
(Sushil Kukreja),
Presiding Judge,
Labour Court, Shimla.
Case called again.
Present: None .
It is 12:55 PM. None appeared for the parties. Be called after lunch.
(Sushil Kukreja),
Presiding Judge,
Labour Court, Shimla.
Case called after lunch.
Present: None .
8726
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
It is 3:15 PM. Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but none appeared for
the parties. Today, the case has been listed for the service of the petitioner as well as respondents.
The record reveals that the notices issued for the services of the petitioner and respondents have
been received back duly served as per the postal AD. The petitioner has also failed to appear
before this Court despite having been served. Therefore, it is presumed that he is not interested to
pursue his case and to file claim petition. The record further reveals that on 2.9.2014& 24.9.2014,
the petitioner had put in his appearance before this Court and thereafter the case was listed for
filing of claim but no claim has been filed by him.Thereafter, the petitioner did not appear before
this Court and various notices have been issued to him but he has failed to put his appearance
despite having been duly served for today, hence, this Court is left with no other alternative but to
decide the reference on the basis of material whichever is available on file and to further adjourn
the case would be futile exercise.
In the light of aforesaid facts, it appears that at present the petitioner is not interested to
pursue his claim. The following reference qua the termination of services of petitioner was received
from appropriate government for adjudication:
“Whether termination of the services of Shri Mukesh Kumar R/o Village Kharsi,
Tehsil Kasauli, P.O Badhalag, District Solan, HP during July, 2012 by the employer
M/s Link Utsav Private Ltd., Sabzi Mandi Solan, District Solan, HP (present office),
M/s Link Utsav Ventures Private Ltd.,, D-34, Basement Jungpura Extension, New
Dehli-110014 (Regd. Office) without complying with the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back-wages, seniority,
past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above
employer?”
In the absence of any claim petition and evidence on behalf of petitioner, it cannot be held
that his services were wrongly and illegally terminated by the respondent. Hence, the reference is
answered against the petitioner and the award is passed accordingly. However, liberty is granted to
the petitioner to agitate his termination of services by filing an application before this Court in
order to revive the reference. 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:
29.2.2016.
(Sushil Kukreja),
Presiding Judge,
Labour Court, Shimla.
____________
25.2.2016
Present: None for petitioner.
Shri Rupesh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.
This case is being listed for the service of the petitioner from 8.7.2015 and thereafter as
many as six times the notices were issued/sent for the service of the petitioner on the address given
by the Labour Commissioner on reference itself. Today, also the case was listed for the service of
8727
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
petitioner. The report received on notice issued as per order dated 10.11.2015, is revealing that the
service of petitioner could not be effected for want of correct address. I have perused the record.
The notice to the petitioner was sent on the address given by the Labour Commissioner on the
reference itself. In the absence of correct address of the petitioner, it is not possible to effect his
service. So, to further adjourn the case would be futile exercise. At the same time it is relevant to
mention that the Labour Commissioner has informed the petitioner about the present reference by
sending a copy of this reference to him. So, petitioner was having knowledge that the reference was
sent to this Court by the Labour Commissioner. Thus, he could have himself appeared before this
Court in order to file his claim.
In the light of aforesaid facts, it appears that at present the petitioner is not interested to
pursue his claim. The following reference qua the termination of services of petitioner was received
from appropriate government for adjudication:
“Whether termination of the services of Shri Lalit Kumar S/o Shri Jagpal Singh, VPO
Majhathipur, Tehsil & District Meruth (U.P) w.e.f. 25.1.2014 by the General Manager,
M/s Devyani Food Industries, Village Thana EPIP Phase-II, BAddi, District Solan, HP
without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as alleged
by the workman is legal and justified? If not, to what relief and compensation the
above aggrieved workman is entitled to from the above management?”
In the absence of any claim petition and evidence on behalf of petitioner, it cannot be held
that his services were wrongly and illegally terminated by the respondent. Hence, the reference is
answered against the petitioner and the award is passed accordingly. However, liberty is granted to
the petitioner to agitate his termination of services by filing an application before this Court in
order to revive the reference. 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:
25.2.2016.
(Sushil Kukreja),
Presiding Judge,
Labour Court, Shimla.
____________
26.2.2016
Present: None.
Today the case is listed for the service of the parties. The record reveals that notice issued
for the service of respondent has been received back duly served but none appeared on behalf of the
respondent, hence, the respondent is proceeded against ex-parte. The record also reveals that on
24.9.2014 and 5.10.2015, the petitioner appeared before this Court in person and thereafter on
subsequent dates the petitioner failed to appear before this Court. Thereafter, on various dates the
notices have been issued to the petitioner to appear before this Court but the petitioner failed to
appear before this Court which clearly shows that he is not interested to pursue his case and to file
claim petition.
In the light of aforesaid facts, it appears that at present the petitioner is not interested to
pursue his claim. The following reference qua the termination of services of petitioner was received
from appropriate government for adjudication:
8728
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
“Whether termination of the services of Shri MohitGautam R/o Village Kunihar, P.O
Kunihar, Tehsil Arki, District Solanw.e.f. 24.9.2012 by the Employer M/s Link Utsav
Venture Pvt. Ltd. SabziMandiSolan, District Solan, HP (present office) M/s Link
Utsav Venture Pvt. Ltd., D-34, Basement, Junagpura Extension, New Dehli-110014
(Regd. Office) without without complying with the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what amount of back wages,
seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from
the above employer?”
In the absence of any claim petition and evidence on behalf of petitioner, it cannot be held
that his services were wrongly and illegally terminated by the respondents. Hence, the reference is
answered against the petitioner and the award is passed accordingly. However, liberty is granted to
the petitioner to agitate his termination of services by filing an application before this Court in
order to revive the reference. 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:
26.2.2016.
(Sushil Kukreja),
Presiding Judge,
Labour Court, Shimla.
___________
IN THE COURT OF SUSHIL KUKREJA, PRESIDING JUDGE, INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA, (H.P).
Reference No. 21 of 2014.
Instituted on. 13.2.2014.
Decided on 29.2.2016.
Bhagwan Dass S/o Late Shri Mathu Ram R.o VPO Kairkoti, Tehsil & District Shimla, HP.
……………Petitioner.
Vs.
1.
State of HP through Secretary Education to the Government of Himachal Pradesh
HP Secretariat Shimla-2, H.P.
2.
Vice Chancellor Dr. Y.S Parmar University Horticulture and Forestry at Nouni, District
Solan, H.P.
3.
Associate Director (R&F) RH RF- Mashobra, at Shimla H.P.
4.
Professor and Head of Department of Silvi Culture and agro Forestry at Dr. Y.S Parmar
University Nauni District Solan H.P.
5.
Department of Head and Professor Department of tree improvement at Dr. Y.S Parmar
University Nauni, District Solan, H.P.
8729
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
6.
Professor Department of Horticulture and Land Scaping Dr. Y.S Parmar University Nauni,
District Solan, H.P.
7.
Warden Scaping Dr. Y.S Parmar University Nauni, District Solan, H.P.
8.
Student Welfare Officer of Dr. Y.S Parmar University Nauni, District Solan, H.P.
……………Respondents.
Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
For petitioner :
Shri B.R Kashyap, Advocate.
For respondent no.1:
Shri H.N Kashyap, ADA.
For respondent no.2 to 8: Shri Balwant Singh, Advocate.
AWARD
The following reference has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication:
“Whether termination of services of Shri Bhagwan DassS/o Shri Mathu Ram, mess
helper R/o Village and P.O Kiarkoti, Tehsil Sunni, District Shimla, HP by (1)
Registrar, Dr. Y.S Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, District
Solan, HP (2) Student Welfare Officer, Dr. Y.S Parmar University of Horticulture and
Forestry, Nauni, District Solan, HP (under Graduate Hostel) (3) Warden, Dr. Y.S
Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, District Solan, HP (under
Graduate Hostel) during November, 2012 orally, without serving any notice, without
complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as alleged by the
workman in demand notice is legal and justified? If not, to what back-wages, service
benefits and relief the above named Mess Helper is entitled to from the above
employers?”
(2) Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that in the year, 1997, he had joined the services
with the respondents in the different departments which is under the control of the Dr. Y.S Parmar
University, Nauni District Solan, HP (hereinafter referred to as University). The petitioner had
discharged his duties with all sincerity to the entire satisfaction of his superiors till October, 2012 at
Solan and thereafter in the month of November, 2012, the services of the petitioner have been
terminated without any prior intimation and notice. It is further averred that the petitioner was
engaged on the contractual basis vide letter dated 19.6.2003 and a period of three months was
further extended vide letter dated 10.3.2003 and similarly the services of the petitioner had been
extended in the years, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 and thereafter he continued till October, 2012. It
is also averred that the petitioner made various representations to the respondents with a request for
the regularization of his services from the date of joining i.e from 1997 as the petitioner joined in
the year, 1997 at Mashobra Apple research Centre and thereafter he was send to University at
Nauni. The petitioner is the only earning member in the family and belongs to poor family and has
no other source of income. The action on the part of the respondents is illegal, harsh, oppressive
and unjust and contrary to the provisions of service jurisprudence. Against this back-drop the
petitioner has prayed for his re-instatement in service with seniority from the year 1997,
regularization and other service benefits.
8730
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
(3) The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner by filing reply wherein
preliminary objections have been taken that the petitioner had initially worked in the University at a
fixed salary of Rs. 1800/- w.e.f. 20.6.2003 to 15.9.2003 as labourer for a fixed tenure on certain
terms and conditions under adhoc project NATP NAT -008-51 which was funded by the
Government of India and on the completion of the Project, the services of the petitioner stood
dispensed with by giving him notice in writing. The petitioner had worked with the different
departments of University as a contractual labourer in the different spells, who left the job on his
own and the services of the petitioner had been regulated in accordance with the provisions of
scheme for the engagement of labourer on contractual basis. Lastly, the petitioner had worked in
the Hostel which is being run as co-operative basis as mess servant on outsourced basis @ fixed
amount of Rs. 1400/- per month from 2/2004 to 4/2004, 5/2004 to 8/2004 and from 5.6.2007 to
6/2009 in different spells and as such the claim of the petitioner does not fall under the definition of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act). It is further asserted that the
petitioner had not completed 240 days and the respondents University does not fall under the
jurisdiction of the Act. On merits, it is denied that the petitioner had worked till October, 2012.
However, it is admitted that the petitioner was engaged vide letter dated 18.6.2003 on contractual
basis and worked w.e.f. 20.6.2003 to 15.9.2003, under the project which was funded by the
Government of India. The petitioner further worked on contractual basis w.e.f. 21.6.2005 to
14.9.2005 in the department of Silviculture and Agroforestry and thereafter w.e.f. Jan., 2006 to
March, 2006, Jan., 2007 to March, 2007 and May 2007 to June, 2007 in the department of tree
improvement and Genetic Resources in the University. It is also asserted that that the representation
of the petitioner was sent to Students Welfare Officer which was withdrawn by the petitioner.
Since, the petitioner was never engaged with the respondents, hence the question of retrenchment
does not arise as the petitioner had worked only for short spell of time. The respondents prayed for
the dismissal of the claim petition.
(a) By filing rejoinder, the petitioner reaffirmed his allegation by denying those of the
respondents.
(b) Pleadings of the parties give rise to the following issues which were struck on
17.9.2014.
1.
Whether the services of the petitioner were terminated during November, 2012
without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in
illegal and unjustified manner as alleged?
OPP……..
2. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, to what service benefits, the petitioner is
entitled to and from whom?
OPP…..
3. Whether this petition is not maintainable as alleged in preliminary objections?
OPR……..
4. Relief.
6. Besides having heard the Learned ADA/Counsels for the parties, I, 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.
8731
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
Issue no.2 Not entitled to any relief.
Issue no.3 No.
Relief. Reference answered against the petitioner and in favour of the
respondents per operative part of award.
Reasons for findings
Issue no.1
8.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the services of the petitioner
have been terminated by the respondents without complying with the mandatory provisions of the
Act as neither any notice was served upon him nor he was paid compensation. He further
contended that the petitioner had completed 240 days in every calendar year and juniors to the him
are still working with the respondents and his services have been terminated without any reason
and even no opportunity of being heard was afforded to him before terminating his services.
9.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended
that the petitioner had worked as contractual labourer with the respondents University under
different projects in different spells, who had never completed 240 days in any calendar year,
hence, the petitioner is not entitled for the protection of sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act.
10. To prove his case, the petitioner has examined himself as PW-7 and seven other
witnesses as PW-1 to PW-6 and PW-8. PW-1 Shri Liaquat Ali, Senior Assistant has stated that Ex.
PW- 1/A and Ex. PW-1/B are the copies of standing instructions dated 5.12.2001 and 14.6.2002
regarding the engagement of the daily waged labourers and the petitioner was engaged as per the
standing instructions. The copies of representation of the petitioner are Ex. PW-1/C to Ex. PW-1/E.
11. PW-2 Shri Tilak Raj, Forest Ranger has stated that the petitioner had been engaged
vide letter dated 18.6.2005, the copy of which is Ex. PW-2/A. In cross-examination, he admitted
that the petitioner had been engaged on contract basis for a specific period of 89 days.
12. PW-3 Dr. V.K Singh, Farm Manager has stated that the petitioner had worked in
November, 2003 for 28 days and 31 days in December, 2003 as contractual labour and during the
said period he had done the farm related work. In cross-examination, he admitted that the petitioner
had worked for two months in their department.
13. PW-4 Shri Papinder Kumar, Clerk has stated that the petitioner was working in the
Mess w.e.f. 2007 to 2009. In cross-examination, he admitted that the petitioner had been engaged
on outsource basis. He further admitted that the petitioner had only worked for 178 days in the year
2007, 294 days in the year, 2008 and 142 days in the year, 2009. He also admitted that the
petitioner was being paid wages after the collection of money from students.
14. PW-5 Shri Tek Chand, Junior Assistant has stated that the Mashobra Regional
Research Centre is under the control of the University. In cross-examination, he admitted that the
record of Regional Research Centre Mashobra is maintained separately by them and the employees
of the aforesaid research Centre are being administered by them.
8732
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
15. PW-6 Shri Mukesh Chand, Forest Ranger has stated that the petitioner had been
engaged by their department vide letter dated 9.1.2006, Ex. PW-6/A and the petitioner had been
engaged in their department w.e.f. Jan., 2006 to March, 2006, May & June, 2006 and thereafter
again engaged vide letter dated 21.12.2006, the copy of which is Ex. PW-6/B from Jan., 2007 to
March, 2007. The petitioner used to do the work of bedding, cutting, watering, sowing and weeding
etc. In cross-examination, he admitted that the petitioner had worked against the stop gap
arrangement.
16. The petitioner appeared into the witness box as PW-7 and tendered his affidavit Ex.
PW-7/A wherein he reiterated almost all the averments as stated in the petition. In cross-
examination, he admitted that he worked only for 85 days in Mashobra in the year, 2003 in Adhoc
project on contract basis. He further admitted that during his working tenure in the University, he
was a contractual employee. He also admitted that he had worked in the project and in Hostel’s
mess as a helper. He admitted that till 2007, he had worked in various projects as labourer on
contractual basis. He denied that before his termination, he was served with a termination notice.
17. PW-8 Shri Niranjan Singh, Senior Assistant has stated that the petitioner was engaged
as labourer on contractual basis vide letter dated 10.9.2003 and vide letter dated 19.6.2003, Ex.
PW-8/B, he was again re-engaged. In cross-examination, he stated that the petitioner had worked
only for 85 days in the year, 2003 in their department (Mashobra). He admitted that the petitioner
was engaged as contractual employee in adhoc project.
18. To rebut the case of the petitioner, the respondents have examined four RWs. RW-1
Shri Niranjan Singh, Senior Assistant has stated that the petitioner was engaged on 20.6.2003 under
project and worked till 15.9.2003 as per letter Ex. RW-1/A and thereafter his services were
dispensed with after exhausting of the funds for the project. The petitioner was doing the work of
plantation etc. The petitioner had also given an undertaking vide Ex. RW-1/B and termination letter
Ex. Rw-1/C was given to the petitioner. In cross-examination, he denied that the petitioner had
worked for four months and the services of the petitioner have been terminated within a period of
one month from the date of engagement. He admitted that no notice was issued to the petitioner
prior to the termination of his services.
19. RW-2 Shri Tilak Raj, Forest Ranger has stated that vide letter Ex. RW-2/A, he has
been authorized to make the statement before this Court. He further stated that the petitioner was
engaged on 20.6.2005 by the department of silviculture for a period of 89 days, on contract basis, in
the project vide letter Ex. RW-2/B and affidavit Ex. RW-2/C had been given by the petitioner at the
time of his engagement. In cross-examination, he admitted that there are different departments
working under the university. He admitted that the services of the petitioner were terminated before
the completion of the Project and no notice was issued to the petitioner before terminating his
services.
20. RW-3 Shri Papinder Kumar, Clerk has stated that vide letter Ex. RW-3/A, the
petitioner was engaged in students welfare office on 26.5.2007 and undertaking Ex. RW-3/B had
been given by the petitioner at the time of his engagement. He further stated that the petitioner was
being paid wages by the students. In cross-examination, he admitted that the petitioner was engaged
by the Student Welfare Officer working under the university. He further admitted that no notice
was issued to the petitioner before terminating his services but explained that the petitioner had left
the job on his own.
21. RW-4 Shri Tejinder Singh, Field Assistant has stated that the petitioner was engaged
on 10.1.2006 by the Professor and Head of Department TIGR and worked till 31.3.2006 vide letter
Ex. RW-4/A on contract basis under the project. Ex. RW-4/B is the affidavit filed by the petitioner
8733
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
at the time of his engagement. Thereafter the petitioner was engaged on 1.5.2006 under the same
project and worked till 30.6.2006 vide letter Ex. RW-4/C and Ex. RW-4/D is the affidavit filed by
the petitioner. Again the petitioner was engaged on contract basis on 1.1.2007 to 31.3.2007 under
the same project vide letter Ex. RW-4/E and Ex. RW-4/F is the affidavit filed by the petitioner. In
cross-examination, he denied that the petitioner had worked for more than a year under the same
project. He admitted that no notices were issued to the petitioner before his each termination.
22. I have closely scrutinized the entire evidence, on record, and from the closer scrutiny
thereof it has become clear that the petitioner had worked in the different departments of the
University as contractual labourer in different spells. The perusal of the record goes to show that
initially the respondents had engaged the petitioner w.e.f. 20.6.2003 under the project and he had
worked till 15.9.2003 as per letter Ex. RW-1/A. Thereafter, he was engaged on 20.6.2005 by the
department of Silviculture for a period of 89 days on contract basis under the project vide letter Ex.
RW-2/B. The petitioner was further engaged on 10.1.2006 by the Professor and Head of TIGR and
worked till 31.3.2006 on contract basis under the project vide letter Ex. RW-4/A. Thereafter, he
was again engaged on 1.5.2006 under the same project and worked till 30.6.2006 vide letter Ex.
RW-4/C. He was also engaged on contract basis w.e.f. 1.1.2007 to 31.3.2007 under the same
project vide letter Ex. RW-4/E. Then, the petitioner was further engaged in Student Welfare Office
on 26.5.2007 vide letter Ex. RW-3/A on contract basis and he had also given an undertaking Ex.
RW-3/B at the time of his engagement.
23. Therefore, from the aforesaid material on record, it is clear that the petitioner had
worked with the respondents in different departments as a casual worker on contract basis. This fact
has also been categorically admitted by the petitioner in his cross-examination that during his
working tenure in the university, he was a contractual employee. He further admitted that till the
year 2007, he had worked in various projects as labourer on contractual basis. Hence, from the
perusal of the record coupled with the admission of the petitioner, it stands duly proved on record
that the services of the petitioner had been engaged by the respondents on contract basis under
different departments of the University in the different spells. In 2006 LLR 1233 SC in case titled
as Vidya Vardhaka Sangha & Anr. V. Y.D Deshpande &Ors, it has been held that:—
“The appointment made on probation/ad-hoc basis for a specific period of time comes to
an end by efflux of time and the person on such post can have no right to continue on the
post. When after having accepted the terms and conditions stipulated in the appointment
letter and allowed, the period for which they were appointed has been elapsed by efflux of
time, they cannot be permitted to challenge the validity of their termination.
It was also held in (2006) 6 SCC 221, case titled as Reserve Bank of India V. Gopinath
Sharma & Anr. that workman not appointed to any regular post but engaged on the basis of need
of work on day to day basis, had no right to the post.
In 2006 (2) SCC 794 in case titled as Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board V.
Subhash Chand & Anr. the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:—
“11. The question as to whether Chapter V-A of the Act will apply or not would be
dependent on the issue as to whether an order of retrenchment comes within the
purview of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act or not. If the termination of service in
view of the exception contained in clauses (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act is not a
’retrenchment’, the question of applicability of Chapter V-A thereof would not
arise.
8734
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
12. Central Bank of India Vs. S. Stayam whereupon reliance was placed by Mr.
Singh, is itself an authority for the proposition that the definition of
’retrenchment’ as contained in the said provision is wide. Once it is held that
having regard to the nature of termination of services it would not come within
the purview of the said definition, the question of applicability of Section 25-G of
the Act does not arise.”
24. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis with
the different departments of the university under the different projects in the different spells. Thus,
on the basis of the above cited rulings and also having regard to the entire evidence on record, it
can safely be concluded that the petitioner had been engaged on contract basis, who was not
retrenched within the meaning of section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that his
case falls within the exception as prescribed under section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. Consequently, the
petitioner fails to prove this issue, to which my answer is in the negative.
Issue no.2.
25. Since, the petitioner has failed to prove issue no.1, this issue becomes redundant.
Issue no.3.
26. In support of this issue, no evidence was led by the respondent. Moreover, I find
nothing wrong with this petition which is perfectly maintainable. Accordingly, issue no.3 is decided
in favour of petitioner and against the respondent.
Relief
As a sequel to my above discussion and findings on issue no.1 to 3, the claim of the
petitioner fails and is hereby dismissed with the result the reference is answered against the
petitioner and in favour of 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 29th Day of Feb., 2016.
(Sushil Kukreja),
Presiding Judge,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Shimla.
____________
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA- 171 001
NOTIFICATION
Shimla, the 01st March, 2016
No.HHC/Admn.3(221)/86-II.—12 days commuted leave on and with effect from
01.02.2016 to 12.02.2016, with permission to prefix Sunday, 1st Batch Winter Vacations and
Sunday commencing from 10.01.2016 to 31.01.2016 & suffix second Saturday and Sunday on
13.02.2016 and 14.02.2016, is hereby sanctioned, ex-post-facto, in favour of Shri Ravinder Sharma,
Court Master of this Registry.
8735
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
Certified that Shri Ravinder Sharma has joined the same post and at the same station from
where he had proceeded on leave after the expiry of the above leave period.
Certified that Shri Ravinder Sharma would have continued to officiate the same post of
Court Master but for his proceeding on leave.
By order,
Sd/-
Registrar General.
__________
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA- 171 001
NOTIFICATION
Shimla, the 03rd March, 2016
No.HHC/Admn.3(189)/83-II.—Following kinds of leave are hereby sanctioned, ex-post-
facto, in favour of Smt. Dinesh Chauhan, Deputy Registrar of this Registry:
1. 09 days earned leave i.e. on and with effect from 10.12.2015 to 18.12.2015.
2. 21 days commuted leave on and with effect from 01.01.2016 to 21.01.2016.
Certified that Smt. Dinesh Chauhan has joined the same post and at the same station from
where she had proceeded on leave after the expiry of the above leave period.
Certified that Smt. Dinesh Chauhan would have continued to officiate the same post of
Deputy Registrar but for her proceeding on leave.
By order,
Sd/-
Registrar General.
___________
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA- 171 001
NOTIFICATION
Shimla, the 26th February, 2015
No.HHC/Admn.3(331)/92-I.—04 days earned on and with effect from 08.03.2016 to
11.03.2016, with permission to prefix Sunday and Gazetted Holiday falling on 06.03.2016 and
07.03.2016 & suffix second Saturday and Sunday falling on 12.03.2016 and 13.03.2016, is hereby
sanctioned, in favour of Shri Davinder Chopra, Deputy Registrar of this Registry.
Certified that Shri Davinder Chopra is likely to join the same post and at the same station
from where he proceeds on leave after the expiry of the above leave period.
8736
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
Certified that Shri Davinder Chopra would have continued to officiate the same post of
Deputy Registrar but for his proceeding on leave.
By order,
Sd/-
Registrar General.
__________
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA- 171 001
NOTIFICATION
Shimla, the 29th February, 2016
No.HHC/Estt.3(567)/2005.—03 days commuted leave on and with effect from 18.02.2016
to 20.02.2016, with permission to suffix Sunday on 21.02.2016, is hereby sanctioned, ex-post-facto,
in favour of Smt. Urmila Gosain, Court Master of this Registry.
Certified that Smt. Urmila Gosain has joined the same post and at the same station from
where she had proceeded on leave after the expiry of the above leave period.
Certified that Smt. Urmila Gosain would have continued to officiate the same post of Court
Master but for her proceeding on leave.
By order,
Sd/-
Registrar General.
__________
jktLo foHkkx vuqHkkx&?k
vf/klwpwpuk
f”keyk&2] 4 ekpZ] 2016
la[;k% jktLo&Mh0&¼,Q½4&1@2016-&&fgekpy izns”k Hkw&vfHkys[k fu;ekoyh] 1992 ds iSjk 3-17
,oe iSjk 3-18 es of.kZr@fufnZ’V izko/kkuksa@ekudksa esa NwV nsrs gq, jkT;iky] fgekpy izns”k]
mi&rglhy nsgk ftyk f”keyk ds iVokj o`r cy/kkj ds pkj eqgkykas rFkk ?kq.M ds ,d eqgky dk
fo?kVu djrs gq, ,d u;s iVokj o`r frgkuk] mi&rg0 nsgk] ftyk f”keyk esa lEofU/kr eqgkyksa dh
lwfp lfgr vuqcU/k ßdß ds vuqlkj l`ftr djus ds lg’kZ vkns”k nsrs gSa A
vkns”k }kjk]
r:.k Jh/kj]
vfr0 eq[; lfpo ,oe foRrk;qDr ¼jktLo½A
8737
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
vuqcU/k ^^v**
orZeku esa iVokj o`r cy/kkj] mi rglhy nsgk esa dqy ekStk dh la[;k%
Øe
la[;k%
Ukke iVokj o`r
dqy jdok
gS0 esa
dqy [kljk
uEcj
dqy [kkrk
uEcj
dqy [krkSuh
uEcj
fooj.k
1-
cy/kkj
192
647
69
112
2-
dfV;k.kk izFke
48
262
26
44
3-
dfV;k.kk f}rh;
80
766
29
57
4-
dfV;k.kk r`rh;
81
294
50
66
5-
iMxS;k
102
689
58
136
6-
fegk.kk
155
1021
167
165
7-
frgk.kk
107
475
64
105
8-
Fkkuk/kkj
84
429
56
90
9-
djxksyh
111
778
86
150
960
5361
505
925
vuqcU/k ^^c**
izLrkouk mijkUr iVokj o`r cy/kkj] mi rglhy nsgk esa dqy ekStk dh la[;k%
Øe
la[;k%
uke iVokj o`r
dqy jdok
gS0 esa
dqy [kljk
uEcj
dqy [kkrk
uEcj
dqy [krkSuh
uEcj
fooj.k
1-
cy/kkj
192
647
69
112
2-
dfV;k.kk izFke
48
262
26
44
3-
dfV;k.kk f}rh;
80
766
29
57
4-
dfV;k.kk r`rh;
81
294
50
66
5-
djxksyh
111
778
86
150
532
2747
260
419
vuqcU/k ^^t**
orZeku esa izLrkfor iVokj o`r frgk.kk] mi rglhy nsgk esa dqy ekStk dh la[;k%
Øe
la[;k%
uke iVokj o`r
dqy jdok
gS0 esa
dqy [kljk
uEcj
dqy [kkrk
uEcj
dqy [krkSuh
uEcj
fooj.k
1-
iMxS;k
102
689
58
136
2-
fegk.kk
155
1021
167
165
3-
frgk.kk
107
474
64
105
4-
Fkkuk/kkj
84
429
56
90
5-
cukMh
131
351
57
102
579
2965
402
598
8738
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
vuqcU/k ^^l**
orZeku esa iVokj o`r ?kq.M] mi rglhy nsgk esa dqy ekStk dh la[;k
Øe
la[;k%
Ukke iVokj o`r
dqy jdok
gS0 esa
dqy [kljk
uEcj
dqy [kkrk
uEcj
dqy [krkSuh
uEcj
fooj.k
1-
?kq.M
250
1648
141
312
2-
Mh0ih0,Q0 ?kq.M
293
100
23
143
3-
ikyoh
191
1358
103
278
4-
xMSMh
115
680
58
143
5-
fVDdj
192
1031
53
141
6-
cukMh
131
351
57
100
1172
5168
435
1117
vuqcU/k ^^g**
izLrkouk mijkUr iVokj o`r ?kq.M] mi rglhy nsgk eas dqy ekStk dh la[;k
Øe
la[;k
Ukke iVokj o`r
dqy jdok
gSD0 esa
dqy [kljk
uEcj
dqy [kkrk
uEcj
dqy [krkSuh
uEcj
fooj.k
1-
?kq.M
250
1648
141
321
2-
Mh0ih0,Q0 ?kq.M
293
100
23
143
3-
ikyoh
191
1358
103
278
4-
xMSMh
115
680
58
143
5-
fVDdj
192
1031
53
141
1041
4817
378
1017
&&&&&&&&&&
MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATION
Shimla-2, the 11th March, 2016.
NO. HFW-B(B)1-5/2015.—In order to establish multi-disciplinary context in teaching and
practice in public health in the State and to provide efficacious health services and effectively meet
the public health need of patients and to evaluate the National Health Programmes in the State with
a view to provide maximum benefits to the general population, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is
pleased to order the creation of a School of Public Health in the Dr. Rajinder Parsad Government
Medical College, Tanda, District- Kangra, Himachal Pradesh with the following objectives and
measurable indicators:—
8739
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
Objectives of the Scheme:
Establishing the School of Public Health in Himachal Pradesh aims to improve the public
health capacity of the state, northern region and even the entire country. It shall be
achieving its aim while focusing on specific objectives;
•
To provide efficient consultancy services to State health services on public health
matters.
•
To act as the center for evaluation and training of National Health Programmes/
schemes being undertaken by the Government of Himachal Pradesh.
•
To develop teaching/ training material for medical professional involved in
implementation of National Health Programmes/ schemes.
•
To provide inputs to the State Government in identifying priority healthy care areas for
its people.
•
To help establish models of Health Care Delivery using available resources within
already existing health care set up of the state.
•
To identify sustainable health care delivery points in terms of manpower and resource
e.g. identify the role of AYUSH and other practitioners in current system of health care
delivery.
•
To initiate the teaching programmes such as Master in Public Health (MPH), Diploma
in Public Health (DPH) and Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in public health.
•
To start short term training courses in various fields of public health for candidates
working in state health care delivery system (in-service).
•
To carry out research by setting up model public health projects keeping in view
national health policy guidelines and vision of health for all in 21st century.
Measurable Indicators of the Scheme:
•
Participation in public health policy planning, project implementation plan (PIP) for
health, capacity building of health care professionals in the primary health care system
and monitoring & evaluation of national health programs in the state, region and
country.
•
Number of teaching/ training modules/ protocols developed.
•
Number of programmes/ schemes evaluated.
•
Number of recommendations made to national programmes/ schemes at
implementation level.
•
Number of Public Health Professionals with MPH in a year (Expected 11 in a year).
•
Number of Public Health Professionals with DPH in a year (Expected 11 in a year).
•
Number of Public Health Professionals with PhD in a year (Expected one in a year).
8740
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
•
Number of research projects raised by monetary assistance from state, national, and
international research organizations.
•
Number of research publications in international and national journals with an impact
factor.
2. The Governor, Himachal Pradesh is also pleased to order that no separate posts would
for the present be created for the School of Public Health.
3. The Governor, Himachal Pradesh, is further pleased to order that the Regional Health
and Family Welfare Training Centre, Chebb, District- Kangra shall be taken over by the Dr.
RPGMC, Tanda to establish the School of Public Health. The School of Public Health will function
under the department of Community Medicine, Dr. RPGMC, Tanda, District- Himachal Pradesh.
4. The Governor, Himachal Pradesh is further pleased to order that the Principal, Dr.
RPGMC, Tanda will immediately operationalise the School of Public Health through
internalization.
By order,
Sd/-
Additional Chief Secretary (Health).
__________
c vnkyr uk;c rglhynkj ,oe~ dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] 'kkgiqj] ftyk dkaxM+k ¼fg0 iz0½
Jherh n'kZuk nsoh iRuh Jh jkt dqekj] xkao o Mkd?kj nqjxsyk] rglhy 'kkgiqj] ftyk dkaxM+k]
¼fg0 iz0½
- - izkfFkZ;k
cuke
vke turk
fo"k;-&&izkFkZuk&i= tsj /kkjk 13¼3½ tUe ,oe~ e`R;q iathdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1969 ckjsA
jkti= b'rgkj ckjsA
Jherh n'kZuk nsoh iRuh Jh jkt dqekj] xkao o Mkd?kj nqjxsyk] rglhy 'kkgiqj] ftyk dkaxM+k]
¼fg0 iz0½ us bl vnkyr esa izkFkZuk i= e; O;ku gYQh xqtkjk gS fd esjs yMds vfHk"ksd dk tUe
11&5&1995 dks gqvk gSA ysfdu xzke iapk;r ds fjdkMZ jftLVj esa ntZ u gqvk gSA
vr% bl jkti= b'rgkj }kjk vke turk dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn bl ckjs fdlh Hkh
O;fDr dks dksbZ mtj ;k ,rjkt gks rks og fnukad 29&03&2016 dks izkr% 10-00 cts vnkyr esa gkftj
gksdj viuk ,rjkt is'k dj ldrk gSA dksbZ ,rjkt is'k u gksus dh lwjr esa tUe frfFk iathd`r djus ds
vkns'k dj fn;s tk,axsA
vkt fnukad 15&02&2016 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr ls tkjh gqvkA
eksgjA
gLrk{kfjr@&
dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh]
'kkgiqj] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'kA
8741
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
c vnkyr lgk;d lekgrkZ f}rh; Js.kh] 'kkgiqj] ftyk dkaxM+k ¼fg0 iz0½
Jh jktho flag iq= Jh vuthu flag] fuoklh xkao oSgdkjh] Mkd?kj jtksy] rglhy 'kkgiqj] ftyk
dkaxMk ¼fg0 iz0½
- - izkFkhZ
cuke
vke turk
fo"k;-&&dkxtkr eky esa uke dh n#Lrh fg0 iz0 Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e] 1954 tsj/kkjk 37¼2½ ds vUrxZr
djus ckjsA
jkti= b'rgkj ckjsA
Jh jktho flag iq= Jh vuthu flag] fuoklh xkao oSgdkjh] Mkd?kj jtksy] rglhy 'kkgiqj us bl
vnkyr esa 'kiFk i= lfgr vkosnu i= xqtkjk gS fd mldk uke jktho flag gSA ijUrq egky oSgdkjh esa
vthr flag o eqgky vEckMh esa vtho flag ntZ gS] tks fd xyr gSA n#Lrh dh tkosA
vr% bl jkti= b'rgkj }kjk vke turk dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd jktLo vfHkys[k esa lgh
uke n#Lr djus ckjs ;fn fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks dksbZ mtj ;k ,rjkt gks rks og fnukad 29&03&2016 dks
izkr% 10-00 cts ekSf[kd ;k fyf[kr :i esa is'k dj ldrk gSA ;fn mijksDr uke n#Lrh dk ,rjkt is'k
u gqvk rks fu;ekuqlkj jktLo vfHkys[k esa dk;Zokgh vey esa ykbZ tk,xhA
eksgjA
gLrk{kfjr@&
lgk;d lekgrkZ f}rh; Js.kh]
'kkgiqj] ftyk dkaxM+k ¼fg0 iz0½A
&&&&&&
c vnkyr lgk;d lekgrkZ f}rh; Js.kh] 'kkgiqj] ftyk dkaxM+k ¼fg0 iz0½
Jh fouksn flag iq= Jh x.ks'k jke] fuoklh xkao Hkukyk] rglhy 'kkgiqj] ftyk dkaxMk ¼fg0 iz0½
- - izkFkhZ
cuke
vke turk
fo"k;-&&dkxtkr eky esa uke dh n#Lrh fg0 iz0 Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e] 1954 tsj/kkjk 37¼2½ ds vUrxZr
djus ckjsA
jkti= b'rgkj ckjsA
Jh fouksn flag iq= Jh x.ks'k jke] fuoklh xkao Hkukyk] rglhy 'kkgiqj us bl vnkyr esa 'kiFk
i= lfgr vkosnu i= xqtkjk gS fd mldk lgh uke fouksn flag gSA ijUrq jktLo vfHkys[k egky D;kjh
o ukgyu esa cynso flag ntZ gS] tks fd xyr gSA n#Lrh dh tkosA
vr% bl jkti= b'rgkj }kjk vke turk dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd jktLo vfHkys[k esa lgh
uke n#Lr djus ckjs ;fn fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks dksbZ mtj ;k ,rjkt gks rks og fnukad 29&03&2016 dks
8742
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
izkr% 10-00 cts ekSf[kd ;k fyf[kr :i esa is'k dj ldrk gSA ;fn mijksDr uke n#Lrh dk ,rjkt is'k
u gqvk rks fu;ekuqlkj jktLo vfHkys[k esa dk;Zokgh vey esa ykbZ tk,xhA
vkt fnukad 10&02&2016 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr ls tkjh gqvkA
eksgj vnkyrA
gLrk{kfjr@&
lgk;d lekgrkZ f}rh; Js.kh]
'kkgiqj] ftyk dkaxM+k ¼fg0 iz0½A
&&&&&&
c vnkyr uk;c rglhynkj ,oe~ dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] 'kkgiqj] ftyk dkaxM+k ¼fg0 iz0½
Jherh dsljh nsoh iRuh Lo0 Jh d`".k pUn] fuoklh xkao flgksyiqjh] Mkd?kj 'kkgiqj] rglhy
'kkgiqj] ftyk dkaxM+k ¼fg0 iz0½
- - izkfFkZ;kA
cuke
vke turk
fo"k;-&&izkFkZuk&i= tsj /kkjk 13¼3½ tUe ,oe~ e`R;q iathdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1969 ckjsA
Jherh dsljh nsoh iRuh Lo0 Jh d`".k pUn] fuoklh xkao flgksyiqjh] Mkd?kj 'kkgiqj] rglhy
'kkgiqj] ftyk dkaxM+k ¼fg0 iz0½ us bl vnkyr esa izkFkZuk i= e; O;ku gYQh xqtkjk gS fd esjh lkl
Jherh /kehZ nsoh iRuh Jh lsljh nr dh e`R;q fnukad 20&06&1979 dks gqbZ FkhA ysfdu xzke iapk;r ds
fjdkMZ jftLVj esa ntZ u gqbZ gSA
vr% bl jkti= b'rgkj }kjk vke turk dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn bl ckjs fdlh Hkh
O;fDr dks dksbZ mtj ;k ,rjkt gks rks og fnukad 29&03&2016 dks izkr% 10-00 cts vnkyr esa gkftj
gksdj viuk ,rjkt is'k dj ldrk gSA dksbZ ,rjkt is'k u gksus dh lwjr esa e`R;q frfFk iathd`r djus ds
vkns'k ikfjr dj fn;s tk,axsA
vkt fnukad 15&02&2016 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr ls tkjh gqvkA
eksgjA
gLrk{kfjr@&
dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh]
'kkgiqj] ftyk dkaxM+k] fgekpy izns'kA
&&&&&&
c vnkyr Jh vfuy pkSgku] mi&e.Mykf/kdkjh ¼uk0½ pkSiky] rglhy pkSiky]
ftyk f'keyk ¼fg0 iz0½
Jh jkds'k dqekj iq= Jh yk;d jke] xkao ekux<+] Mkd?kj cxkM+] rglhy pkSiky] ftyk f'keyk
¼fg0 iz0½
- - oknhA
cuke
¼1½ vke turk
¼2½ iz/kku] xzke iapk;r fdj.k] rglhy pkSiky
- - izfroknhA
fo"k;-&&izkFkhZ Jh jkds'k dqekj dk uke o tUe frfFk xzke iapk;r fdj.k ds tUe iathdj.k jftLVj esa
ntZ djus gsrqA dh v/khu /kkjk 13¼3½ tUe iathdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1969 ds vUrxZrA
8743
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
b'rgkj
gj [kkl o vke turk dks ctfj;k b'rgkj lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd oknh Jh jkds'k dqekj us
v/kksgLrk{kjh ds U;k;ky; esa ,d vkosnu izLrqr fd;k gS fd mlus viuk uke o tUe frfFk xzke iapk;r
fdj.k esa ntZ ugha djok j[kk gS vc oknh viuk uke o tUe frfFk xzke iapk;r fdj.k ds tUe iathdj.k
jftLVj esa ntZ djokuk pkgrk gS tks fd bl izdkj ls gS%&
uke iq= tUe frfFk
jkds'k dqekj yk;d jke
30&06&1992
blfy, xzke iapk;r fdj.k] rglhy pkSiky dh turk dks ctfj;k b'rgkj lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS
fd ;fn fdlh O;fDr dks mijksDr tUe iathdj.k ckjs dksbZ vkifŸk gks rks og fnukad 28&03&2016 dks ;k
blls iwoZ vlkyru ;k odkyr gkftj vnkyr vkdj viuh vkifŸk izLrqr djsa vU;Fkk vkosnu&i= ij
tUe iathdj.k vkns'k ikfjr djds vkxkeh dk;Zokgh gsrq lfpo xzke iapk;r fdj.k dks Hkst fn;k tk;sxkA
vkt fnukad 27&02&2016 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj lfgr vnkyr ls tkjh fd;k x;kA
eksgjA
vfuy pkSgku]
mi&e.Mykf/kdkjh ¼uk0½]
pkSiky] ftyk f'keykA
&&&&&&&&&&
c vnkyr Jh vfuy pkSgku] mi&e.Mykf/kdkjh ¼uk0½ pkSiky] rglhy pkSiky]
ftyk f'keyk ¼fg0 iz0½
Jh jks'ku yky iq= Jh lksgu flag] xkao cVsoMh] ijxuk fiaMxzk] Mkd?kj dsnh] rglhy pkSiky]
ftyk f'keyk ¼fg0 iz0½
- - oknhA
cuke
¼1½ vke turk
¼2½ iz/kku] xzke iapk;r dsnh] rglhy pkSikyA
- - izfroknhA
fo"k;-&&oknh Jh jks'ku yky ds iq= dk uke o tUe frfFk xzke iapk;r dsnh ds tUe iathdj.k jftLVj
esa ntZ djok;s tkus ckjs] dh v/khu /kkjk 13¼3½ tUe ,oa e`R;q iathdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1969 ds
vUrxZrA
b'rgkj
gj [kkl o vke turk dks ctfj;k b'rgkj lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd oknh Jh jks'ku yky us
v/kksgLrk{kjh ds U;k;ky; esa ,d vkosnu izLrqr fd;k gS fd esjs csVs dk uke o tUe frfFk xzke iapk;r
dsnh ds tUe iathdj.k jftLVj esa ntZ ugha gSA vc oknh vius csVs dk uke o tUe frfFk iapk;r dsnh esa
ntZ djokuk pkgrk gS tks fd fuEu izdkj ls gS%&
uke lEcU/k tUe frfFk
lanhi dqekj
iq=
25&03&1990
blfy, xzke iapk;r dsnh] rglhy pkSiky dh turk dks ctfj;k b'rgkj lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS
fd fdlh O;fDr dks mijksDr tUe iathdj.k ckjs dksbZ vkifŸk gks rks fnukad 28&03&2016 dks ;k blls
8744
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
iwoZ vlkyru ;k odkyru gkftj vnkyr vkdj viuh vkifŸk izLrqr djsa vU;Fkk vkosnu&i= ij tUe
iathdj.k vkns'k ikfjr djds lfpo] xzke iapk;r dsnh dks vkxkeh dk;Zokgh gsrq Hkst fn;k tk;sxkA
vkt fnukad 27&02&2016 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj lfgr vnkyr ls tkjh fd;k x;kA
eksgjA
vfuy pkSgku]
mi&e.Mykf/kdkjh ¼uk0½]
pkSiky] ftyk f'keykA
&&&&&&&&&&
In the Court of Shri Gian Sagar Negi, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shimla (R),
District Shimla (H. P.)
Shri Rikhu Ram s/o Shri Thakru Dass, r/o Village Ghishan Khad, Kiar Koti, P. O. Kiar
Koti, Tehsil & District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
Versus
General Public
.. Respondent.
Whereas Shri Rikhu Ram s/o Shri Thakru Dass, r/o Village Ghishan Khad, Kiar Koti, P. O.
Kiar Koti, Tehsil & District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh has filed an application along with affidavit
in the court of undersigned under Section 13(3) of the Births & Deaths Registration Act, 1969 to
enter date of birth of his son named—Mr. Piyush s/o Shri Rikhu Ram s/o Shri Thakru Dass, r/o
Village Ghishan Khad, Kiar Koti, P. O. Kiar Koti, Tehsil & District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in
the record of Secy., Birth and Death, Municipal Corporation, Shimla.
Sl.
No.
Name of the family members
Relation
Date of birth
1.
Mr. Piyush
Son
20-02-2011
Hence, this proclamation is issued to the general public if they have any objection/claim
regarding entry of the date of birth of above named in the record of Municipal Corporation, Shimla
may file their claims/objections on or before one month of publication of this notice in Govt.
Gazette in this court, failing which necessary orders will be passed.
Issued today 10-03-2016 under my signature and seal of the court.
Seal.
Sd/-
Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Shimla (R), District Shimla.
8745
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
In the Court of Shri Gian Sagar Negi, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shimla (R),
District Shimla (H. P.)
Smt. Meena Kumari d/o Shri Geeta Ram, r/o Village Patti, P.O. Rajahana, Tehsil & District
Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
Versus
General Public
.. Respondent.
Whereas Smt. Meena Kumari d/o Shri Geeta Ram, r/o Village Patti, P.O. Rajahana, Tehsil
& District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh has filed an application along with affidavit in the court of
undersigned under Section 13(3) of the Births & Deaths Registration Act, 1969 to enter date of
birth of her daughter named—Ms. Tejasvini d/o Smt. Meena Kumari d/o Shri Geeta Ram, r/o
Village Patti, P.O. Rajahana, Tehsil & District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in the record of Secy.,
Birth and Death, Gram Panchayat Rajahana, Shimla.
Sl.
No.
Name of the family members
Relation
Date of birth
1.
Ms. Tejasvini
Daughter
16-12-2013
Hence, this proclamation is issued to the general public if they have any objection/claim
regarding entry of the name & date of birth of above named in the record of Gram Panchayat
Rajahana, Shimla may file their claims/objections on or before one month of publication of this
notice in Govt. Gazette in this court, failing which necessary orders will be passed.
Issued today 11-03-2016 under my signature and seal of the court.
Seal.
Sd/-
Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Shimla (R), District Shimla.
__________
Before the court of Marriage Officer (S.D.M.) Paonta Sahib,
District Sirmaur, H. P.
NOTICE UNDER SECTION 16 OF SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT
Whereas Shri Trilochan Singh s/o Shri Gurdyal Singh, r/o House No. 127/3, Ward No. 3,
Rajban Road, Taruwala, District Sirmaur (H.P.) and Kanwaldeep Kaur d/o Shri Balkar Singh, r/o
House No. 89/11 Gulab Colony, Taraori, District Karnal (HR.) have filed an application for the
registration of their marriage, which was solemnized on 13-04-2009 and they have living as
husband and wife ever since then.
Notices are given to all concerned ane General Public to this effect that if any body has got
any objection regarding the registration of marriage duly solemnized between above said Shri
Trilochan Singh s/o Shri Gurdyal Singh, r/o House No. 127/3, Ward No. 3, Rajban Road, Taruwala,
District Sirmaur (H.P.) and Kanwaldeep Kaur d/o Shri Balkar Singh, r/o House No. 89/11 Gulab
Colony, Taraori, District Karnal (HR.) they should file their written objections and should appear
8746
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
personally or through their authorized agents before me within the period of thirty days from the
date of issue of this notices. After expiry of the said period, the marriage certificate would be issued
to the applicant by this court and later on no objection will be heard and accepted.
Seal.
Sd/-
Marriage Officer (S.D.M.),
Paonta Sahib, H.P..
_________
In the court of Shri H. S. Rana, H.A.S. Marriage Officer (SDM) Paonta Sahib,
District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh
NOTICE UNDER SECTION 16 OF SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT, 1954
In the matter of
Shri Balbir Singh s/o Shri Mahinder Singh, r/o Village Amargarh Puruwala, Tehsil Paonta
Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. and Smt. Manju d/o Shri Sohan Singh, r/o Village Amargarh
Puruwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur HP.
Versus
General Public
Whereas Shri Balbir Singh s/o Shri Mahinder Singh, r/o Village Amargarh Puruwala,
Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. and Smt. Manju d/o Shri Sohan Singh, r/o Village
Amargarh Puruwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. have filed an application for
registration of their marriage solemnized on 04-01-2016 they have been living as husband and wife
ever since then. Notices are given to all concerned and General Public to this effect that if anybody
has any objection regarding the registration of marriage duly solemnized on 04-01-2016 Shri Balbir
Singh s/o Shri Mahinder Singh, r/o Village Amargarh Puruwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District
Sirmaur, H.P. and Smt. Manju d/o Shri Sohan Singh, r/o Village Amargarh Puruwala, Tehsil
Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur HP. he should file written objections and appear personally before
this court within 30 days from the date of issue of this notice. After expiry of the said period, the
marriage certificate would be issued to the applicants by this court. Issued under my hand and
office seal on dated 03-03-2016.
Seal.
(HARI SINGH RANA) HAS,
Marriage Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur.
____________
In the court of Shri H. S. Rana, H.A.S. Marriage Officer (SDM) Paonta Sahib,
District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh
NOTICE UNDER SECTION 16 OF SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT, 1954
In the matter of
Shri Dhirendra Singh s/o Shri Nar Bahadur, r/o Village Bias, P.O. Kotri Bias, Tehsil Paonta
Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. and Smt. Jully Bam d/o Shri Sirmour Singh Bam, r/o Jamniwala
Road, Village Kotri Bias, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P.
8747
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
Versus
General Public
Whereas Shri Dhirendra Singh s/o Shri Nar Bahadur, r/o Village Bias, P.O. Kotri Bias,
Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. and Smt. Jully Bam d/o Shri Sirmour Singh Bam, r/o
Jamniwala Road, Village Kotri Bias, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. have filed an
application for registration of their marriage solemnized on 11-03-2012 and they have been living
as husband and wife ever since then. Notices are given to all concerned and General Public to this
effect that if anybody has any objection regarding the registration of marriage duly solemnized on
11-03-2012 Shri Dhirendra Singh s/o Shri Nar Bahadur, r/o Village Bias, P.O. Kotri Bias, Tehsil
Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. and Smt. Jully Bam d/o Shri Sirmour Singh Bam, r/o
Jamniwala Road, Village Kotri Bias, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. he should file
written objections and appear personally before this court within 30 days from the date of issue of
this notice. After expiry of the said period, the marriage certificate would be issued to the
applicants by this court. Issued under my hand and office seal on dated 03-03-2016.
Seal.
(HARI SINGH RANA) HAS,
Marriage Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur.
____________
In the court of Shri H. S. Rana, H.A.S. Marriage Officer (SDM) Paonta Sahib,
District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh
NOTICE UNDER SECTION 16 OF SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT, 1954
In the matter of
Shri Nitesh Kumar s/o Shri Rattan Lal, r/o Village Kanfara, Tehsil Naina, District Bilaspur,
H.P., presently Badripur, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur H.P. and Smt. Mamta Devi d/o
Shri Ram Sarup, r/o VPO Chandiani Khurad, Tehsil Balachasaur, District SBS Nagar Panjab.
Versus
General Public
Whereas Shri Nitesh Kumar s/o Shri Rattan Lal, r/o Village Kanfara, Tehsil Naina, District
Bilaspur, H.P., presently Badripur, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur H.P. and Smt. Mamta
Devi d/o Shri Ram Sarup, r/o VPO Chandiani Khurad, Tehsil Balachasaur, District SBS Nagar
Panjab have filed an application for registration of their marriage solemnized on 29-01-2016 and
they have been living as husband and wife ever since then. Notices are given to all concerned and
General Public to this effect that if anybody has any objection regarding the registration of
marriage duly solemnized on 29-01-2016 Shri Nitesh Kumar s/o Shri Rattan Lal, r/o Village
Kanfara, Tehsil Naina, District Bilaspur, H.P., presently Badripur, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District
Sirmaur H.P. and Smt. Mamta Devi d/o Ram Sarup, r/o VPO Chandiani Khurad, Tehsil
Balachasaur, District SBS Nagar Panjab he should file written objections and appear personally
before this court within 30 days from the date of issue of this notice. After expiry of the said period,
the marriage certificate would be issued to the applicants by this court. Issued under my hand and
office seal on dated 03-03-2016.
Seal.
HARI SINGH RANA (HAS),
Marriage Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur.
8748
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
vnkyrh b'rgkj
c vnkyr Jh fgjk flag flej dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] mi&rglhy ukSgjk
Jh yky iq= Jh jke cgknwj] fuoklh ukSgjk/kkj] mi rglhy ukSgjk] ftyk fljekSj] fg0 iz0
cuke
vke turk
mijksDr izkFkZuk i= Jh yky iq= Jh jke cgknwj] fuoklh ukSgjk/kkj] mi rglhy ukSgjk] ftyk
fljekSj] fg0 iz0 us v/khu /kkjk 13¼3½ tUe ,oa e`R;q iathdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1969 ds vUrxZr izLrqr djds
izkFkZuk dh gS fd muds rhu iq= lqjs'k] fojsUnz flag o lqfuy dqekj ftudh tUe frfFk;ka Øe'k%
16&08&1987] 17&05&1990 o 08&01&1993 gS dk uke xzke iapk;r ukSgjk/kkj ds fjdkMZ esa ntZ ugha
djok;k x;k gSA ftls izkFkhZ vc ntZ djokuk pkgrk gSA
vr% loZlk/kkj.k dks bl b'rgkj }kjk lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd bl lEcU/k esa ;fn fdlh O;fDr
dks mtj ;k ,rjkt gks rks og Loa; vFkok vius izfrfuf/k }kjk fefr 11&04&2016 dks lqcg nl cts bl
vnkyr esa mifLFkr vk dj izLrqr djsa clwjr nhxj Jh lqjs'k] fojsUnz flag o lqfuy dqekj dk uke ,oa
tUe frfFk dks ntZ djus ds vkns'k tkjh dj fn;s tk;saxsA
vkt fnukad 02&03&2016 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr ls tkjh gqvkA
eksgjA
gLrk{kfjr@&
dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh]
mi&rglhy ukSgjk] ftyk fljekSj] fg0 iz0A
&&&&&&&&&&&
vnkyrh b'rgkj
c vnkyr Jh fgjk flag flej dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] mi&rglhy ukSgjk
Jh gjh cgknwj iq= Jh fodw yky] fuoklh ukSgjk/kkj] mi rglhy ukSgjk] ftyk fljekSj] fg0 iz0
cuke
vke turk
mijksDr izkFkZuk i= Jh gjh cgknwj iq= Jh fodw yky] fuoklh ukSgjk/kkj] mi rglhy ukSgjk] ftyk
fljekSj] fg0 iz0 us v/khu /kkjk 13¼3½ tUe ,oa e`R;q iathdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1969 ds vUrxZr izLrqr djds
izkFkZuk dh gS fd muds 2 iq= vfuy dqekj o vt; dqekj ftudh tUe frfFk;ka Øe'k% 03&11&1999 o
18&10&1997 gS dk uke xzke iapk;r ukSgjk/kkj ds fjdkMZ esa ntZ ugha djok;k x;k gSA ftls izkFkhZ vc
ntZ djokuk pkgrk gSA
vr% loZlk/kkj.k dks bl b'rgkj }kjk lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd bl lEcU/k esa ;fn fdlh O;fDr
dks mtj ;k ,rjkt gks rks og Loa; vFkok vius izfrfuf/k }kjk fefr 11&04&2016 dks lqcg nl cts bl
8749
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 1937
vnkyr esa mifLFkr vk dj izLrqr djsa clwjr nhxj Jh vfuy dqekj o vt; dqekj dk uke ,oa tUe
frfFk dks ntZ djus ds vkns'k tkjh dj fn;s tk;saxsA
vkt fnukad 02&03&2016 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr ls tkjh gqvkA
eksgjA
gLrk{kfjr@&
dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh]
mi&rglhy ukSgjk] ftyk fljekSj] fg0 iz0A
&&&&&&&&&&&
CHANGE OF NAME
I, Sharda Devi w/o Ex-Service No. 606189 SGT, Swarn Singh Katoch V.P.O. Maranda,
Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra (H.P.) declare that in my husband's service record my name
Sharda Kumari Katoch is wrongly entered. The correct name is Sharda Devi. All concern note.
SHARDA DEVI,
w/o Swarn Singh Katoch, VPO Maranda,
Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra (H.P.).
8750
jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 14 ekpZ] 2016@24 QkYxqu] 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