Himachal Pradesh Gazette, No. 77, 20 July 2016

click here for IIIF manifest

राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश हिमाचल प्रदेश राज्य शासन द्वारा प्रकाशित बुधवार, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938

हिमाचल प्रदेश सरकार

LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Dated 11th July, 2016

No: Shram (A) 6-2/2014 (Awards) D/Shala.—In exercise of the powers vested under section 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, the Governor Himachal Pradesh is pleased to order the publication of awards of the following cases announced by the Presiding Officer, 77-राजपत्र/2016-20-07-2016 (2625) 2626 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 Labour Court D/Shala on the website of the Department of Labour & Employment Government of Himachal Pradesh:—

By order, Sd/- Pr. Secretary ( Lab. & Emp.).

___________

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA (HP)

Ref. No. : 283/2015

Date of Institution : 13.07.2015

Date of Decision : 05.05.2016

Smt. Jamna w/o Shri Desh Raj, r/o Village Kutha, P.O. Darwas, Tehsil Pangi, District ….Petitioner. Chamba, H.P.

Versus

Executive Engineer, Killar Division, H.P.P.W.D. Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, ....Respondent. H.P.

Reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. O.P. Bhardwaj, Adv.

For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A.

AWARD

The reference given below has been received from the appropriate Government for adjudication:

"Whether the industrial dispute raised by the worker Smt. Jamna W/O Shri Desh Raj, R/O Village Kutha, P.O. Darwas, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. before the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, H.P.P.W.D. Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. vide demand notice dated 26.12.2011 regarding her alleged illegal termination of service during September, 2004 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Smt. Jamna W/O Shri Desh Raj, R/O Village Kutha, P.O. Darwas, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, H.P.P.W.D. Killar, Tehsil Pangi,2628 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 District Chamba, H.P. during September, 2004 without complying 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 aggrieved workman is entitled to from the above employer?"

2. On receipt of reference from appropriate government, notices were issued to the parties in pursuance to which claimant/petitioner has filed statement of claim.

3. Brief facts as enumerated in the present claim petition by the petitioner above named reveal that she had been initially engaged as daily waged beldar on muster roll basis in the year 1994 who continuously worked till October, 2004 with the respondent. Averments made in the petition further revealed that petitioner had worked for 160 days in each calendar year as the criteria prescribed for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil District Chamba and became eligible for continuous service envisaged under statutory provisions of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity). Averments made in the petition revealed that the services of petitioner had interrupted by way of intermittent/artificial breaks given by the respondent/department deliberately and as such breaks are required to be counted as continuous services for the purposes of calculation of 160 days so as for the applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. The grievance of petitioner remains that respondent/department had terminated/disengaged petitioner from daily wage service orally without issuing any one month notice in writing indicating the reason for retrenchment besides no retrenchment compensation was paid to petitioner while respondent had illegally terminated her service. It is contended that respondent had not followed the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act while disengaging the services of petitioner. It is stated that petitioner is very poor and no source of income besides after termination of the services of petitioner, she had approached the respondent time and again but of no avail. Grievance of petitioner further remains that when the services of petitioner have been terminated, respondent/department had reengaged number of new workman from time to time and respondent had not followed the principle of 'Last come, First go' as envisaged under Section 25-G of the Act. It is further alleged that respondent/department had continuously retained junior to petitioner and who are still in service with the respondent namely Hukam Chand who appointed in 1997, Jai Dass in 1998, Budhi Ram in 2003, Dev Raj in 2007, Sher Singh in 2011, Bameshwar Dutt in 2011 and Raj Kumar in 2011. The claimant/petitioner claimed that she had spotless service record who never been charge-sheeted for any act of indiscipline or negligence or her conduct and even at the time of verbal termination, no charge-sheet had been served upon her and the at the same time, no opportunity of hearing had been afforded to him. The petitioner also alleges that she has remained unemployed ever since her illegal termination from month of October, 2004 till the date of institution of present claim petition who had been nowhere gainfully employed and was thus entitled for full back wages. Accordingly alleging respondent to have committed violation of statutory provision of Section 25-F, Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for setting aside oral order of termination/retrenchment by the respondent in the month of October, 2004. She further prayed for reinstatement in service w.e.f. month of October, 2004 along-with back wages, seniority including continuity in service as petitioner has remained unemployed since the date of her illegal termination. The petitioner has also prayed that period of intermittent/fictional breaks given time and again during entire service of petitioner between 1996 to October, 2004 be counted 160 days continuous service and regularization of the service of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2002 having completed 8 years of service and per the policy of HP Govt. in pursuance to law settled by Hon'ble High Court of H.P. and to any other relief petitioner is entitled.

4. The respondent contested claim petition, filed reply inter-alia taken preliminary objections of maintainability, claim petition being bad on account of delay and laches. On merits denied that petitioner had worked for more than 160 days in each calendar year rather clarified by2629 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 stating that petitioner was engaged as daily waged beldar in 1996 who remained engaged till 2004 but had worked intermittently as petitioner used to come and attend the work at her own sweet will and convenience. Relying upon the mandays chart, it has been categorically pleaded by the respondent that petitioner had not completed 160 days in each calendar year as required for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil. Allegations of fictional breaks given by respondent to the petitioner have been denied. In so far as engagement of persons junior to petitioner mentioned in para no. 10 of the claim petition were appointed as per order of Labour Court and no other juniors to the petitioner had been retained in service by the respondent. On the plea of termination of service of petitioner, respondent specifically alleges that petitioner had left the job at her own will therefore serving of notice or pay in lieu thereof was not required. Reiterating its stand respondent has maintained that petitioner had left the work of her own sweet will and the persons mentioned in para no.10 are stated to have engaged as per direction of the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal Dharamshala and respondent had not violated the principle of 'Last come, First go'. It is also contended that if petitioner had been terminated in 2004 she would have definitely raised industrial dispute immediately and that after seven years petitioner is stated to be agitating the matter which is bad on account of delay and laches. It is also contended that since the services of petitioner had not been terminated by the respondent, question of issuance of notice or wages in lieu thereof did not arise and at the same time, there was no necessity for charge-sheet or issuing any notice of petitioner after her termination. It is contended that petitioner was agriculturist and gainfully employed and was thus not entitled for back wages.

5. The petitioner filed rejoinder, reiterated her stand as maintained in the claim petition. Further asserted that provisions of Limitation Act did not eclipse the claim of petitioner in totality besides allegation of violation of principle of 'Last come First go' was specifically denied.

6. In order to prove her case, petitioner had examined herself as PW1 tendered/proved her affidavit Ex. PW1/A under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, copy of demand notice Ex. PW1/B, copy of reply dated 4.5.2012 Ex. PW1/C, copy of report under Section 12(4) I.D. Act Ex. PW1/D, copy of order dated 30.5.2015 Ex. PW1/E, copy of order dated 28.2.2011 Ex. PW1/F and Ex. PW1/G mandays chart and closed evidence. On the other hand, repudiating the evidence led by the petitioner, respondent examined RW1 Shri Bal Krishan Kapil, the then Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Killar as RW1 tendered/proved mandays chart of petitioner Ex. RW1/B, Ex. RW1/C copy of mandays chart of co-workers, Ex. RW1/C1 to Ex. RW1/C7 copy of orders/awards and closed the evidence.

7. I have heard the ld. counsel of petitioner and ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent, gone through records of the case carefully relevant for disposed of this case.

8. From the contentions raised, following issues were framed on 27.11.2015 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated 26.12.2011 qua her termination of service during September, 2004 by respondent suffers from the vice of delay and laches as alleged? If so, its effect? …OPP.

2. Whether termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent during September, ...OPP. 2004 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged?

3. If issue no. 2 is proved in affirmative, to what service benefits the petitioner is entitled …OPP.

to?

4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present formas alleged? ...OPR. Relief.

2630 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 9. For the reasons detailed here under, my findings on the above issues are as follows:—

Issue No.1 : Yes

Issue No.2 : Yes

Issue No.3 : Discussed

Issue No.4 : No

Relief. : Petition is partly allowed awarding compensation Rs.1,00,000/- per operative part of award.

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

ISSUES NO.1 TO 3

10. All these issues have been taken up together for discussion being interconnected which can be disposed of simultaneously without repetition of evidence.

11. Relationship of petitioner having been engaged as daily waged beldar by respondent on muster roll basis in the year 1996 continuously worked till September, 2004 with the respondent is not in dispute. Admittedly, petitioner was engaged without any written order or settlement of terms and conditions by the respondent. It is equally not in dispute that no written order was passed while terminating service of the petitioner as claim of respondent remains that it had not retrenched petitioner from service who had abandoned the job of her own and used to work intermittently as per her own wish and convenience. Admittedly, the reference of appropriate govt. does not relate to plea of fictional breaks but only with regard to petitioner's termination from service. In the backdrop of foregoing admitted facts on record, claim of petitioner requires to be adjudicated with a view to determine if petitioner is entitled for relief of reinstatement and back wages along-with seniority and past service benefits and compensation as claimed by him.

12. Stepping into witness box as PW1 has sworn in affidavit Ex. PW1/A reiterating and reaffirming her pleadings as stipulated in claim petition. In her affidavit she has claimed to have worked with the respondent/department for more than 160 days in Pangi Sub Division Chamba District and remained engaged from 1996 to September, 2004. She has also stated on oath that no notice under Section 25-F of the Act was given by the respondent before terminating her service and at the same time no compensation in lieu thereof notice period was paid to her and thus her termination was illegal and void entitling petitioner benefit of reinstatement of service with full back wages and all the other consequential service benefits. The petitioner has further alleged on oath that respondent/department after terminating her services in September, 2004 by oral order had engaged several co-workers who were junior to petitioner were retained in service. Not only this, the persons who were junior to petitioner are stated to have been regularized in service and thus respondent had not followed the mandate of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act which was obligatory on its part. The case of petitioner also remains that she had served respondent with due diligence and had spotless service record as respondent/department had never called any explanation or raised charge-sheet against her but even while retrenching petitioner from service, no notice was given. The petitioner has also explained reason for not approaching the authorities under Labour Act and thereafter before this Tribunal, as there existed no road between Chamba town to Pangi Tehsil till 2011 and petitioner had moved before the Labour Officer raising demand notice consequent upon which a failure report was submitted and as the Labour Commissioner did not make reference for industrial dispute raised by petitioner, the petitioner had moved before the2631 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 Hon'ble High Court by filing CWP where direction was passed for making reference to the Labour Court due to which delay had occurred and same was satisfactorily explained.

13. In so far as plea of abandonment raised by respondent is concerned, the same merits rejection in view of the fact that respondent had failed to produce any record by which it could be established that whenever petitioner absented from her duty as also reflected in mandays chart Ex. RW1/B any notice or letter was ever issued. On this point respondent as RW1 has specifically admitted that whenever petitioner abandoned the job, no notice had been issued. RW1 specifically admitted that no departmental inquiry was initiated against petitioner even after September, 2004. No reason whatsoever has been assigned for such any action or omission on the part of respondent in not initiating any departmental proceedings or making correspondence calling upon the petitioner to join service. This prima facie belies the stand taken by the respondent as abandonment has to be proved like any other fact in issue. The petitioner, on the other hand, as PW1 in cross- examination has specifically denied that she used to leave the job in between and attended the work intermittently rather she has claimed that intermit breaks had been deliberately given to her by the respondent in the service record of petitioner so that petitioner did not complete 160 days of work as required for Pangi Tehsil area and also for applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. As such, in absence of any specific and reliable evidence led by respondent, it would be unsafe to hold that respondent had established plea of abandonment.

14. A bare glance on the mandays chart Ex. RW1/B would reveal that petitioner had worked for 47 days in the year 1996, 155 days in 1997, 162 days in 1998, 128 days in 1999, 149 days in 2000, 117 ½ days in 2001, 150 days in 2002, 131 days in 2003 and 105 days in 2004 and thus a total of her service in 1996 to 2004 in 9 years she had worked for 1144.5 days in her entire service period. Be it noticed that except the year 1998 petitioner had not worked for more than 160 days and as there is no reference from the Labour Commissioner, Shimla on the point of artificial breaks, this court is to confine its findings only with regard to alleged illegal termination. It is evident from mandays chart Ex. RW1/B that in the year 2004 the petitioner had merely worked for 105 days and thus immediately in preceding 12 calendar months from the month of termination of petitioner had not rendered service of 160 days so as to meet requirement of law of having continuous service of one year and thus it was not at all required from respondent to have issued a notice envisaged under Section 25-F of the Act. As such, the respondent is held to have not violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

15. Ld. counsel for petitioner has contended with vehemence that large number of workers who were junior to petitioner had been appointed and these workers have been retained in service and regularized. The grievance of petitioner remains that principle of 'Last come First go' was not followed as the juniors were retained and services of petitioner despite being senior was terminated without any valid reason. Ex. RW1/C is the year-wise mandays of daily waged workers who were junior to the petitioner and had joined in the year 2000 or thereafter. All of these co-workers shown in Ex. RW1/C the year-wise mandays details of workers of Division HPPWD Killar were certainly junior to petitioner who were given sufficient work existing in those years more than 200 days in a year whereas the petitioner had been not given muster roll for the whole month. Ex. RW1/C also established that all the co-workers shown in this document have worked for more than 160 days in most of the years although they were junior to petitioner. Evidently, there is no iota of evidence of respondent establishing that petitioner was called upon to join for service at any time after September, 2004 even at the time when junior persons were reengaged. That being so the respondent had certainly violated the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act as the juniors workers mentioned in para no.10 of the affidavit were retained whereas petitioner was senior from these co- workers having joined service in 1996 was terminated and even thereafter respondent omitted to afford opportunity to petitioner for reemployment for work which also violates the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has placed reliance upon 2632 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 judgment of Central Bank of India vs. S. Satyam, 1996 (5) SCC 419 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for the applicability of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act, there was no necessity of claimant/petitioner to have worked for 240 days as in case of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

16. Repudiating claim of petitioner, the respondent, on the other hand, has made futile attempt to justify engagement of junior workers and their retention in service on the basis of orders of Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Court of H.P. as reflected in Ex. RW1/C1 to Ex RW1/C7. These judgments/orders have been gone through which revealed that respondent had wrongly terminated the services of those claimant/petitioner and for said reasons they were directed to be reinstated. Thus, plea that persons were directed to be appointed in pursuance to awards/orders Ext. Rw1/C1 to Ex. RW1/C7 were primarily on the basis of court orders would not defeat the claim of the petitioner as status of these person being junior to petitioner does not get negatived. As such, even when petitioner is proved to have not worked for more than 160 days in preceding 8 years which entitled her for regularization of her service per government policy, yet respondent is not absolved from its accountability of provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act and as such it is held that respondent had violated the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act.

17. Ld. counsel for petitioner has contended that after petitioner's termination in September, 2004, she had remained unemployed and was not earning anything thereafter as such was entitled for full back wages. Repudiating the arguments of ld. Authorized Representative of petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. for the State has taken this court through cross-examination of the petitioner who has admitted that she had cultivatable land with her and also worked a private labourer. Thus, plea of having remained not gainfully employed gets belied admission of petitioner in cross- examination in which she had maintained that she had been earning from agricultural land as well as she has been working as daily wager privately. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. M. Nagangouda (2007) 10 SCC 765 in which Division Bench comprising of Justice A.R. Lakshmanan and Justice Altamas Kabir had held that 'term gainfully employment would also include self employment wherefrom income is generated. It was income either from employment in an establishment or from self employment merely differentiates the sources from which income is generated, the end use being the same'. Applying the ratio of judgment of 2007 (supra) to this case since the petitioner was earning from her agricultural and manual pursuits, the same were sufficient to maintain her and her family. It is thus held that petitioner was gainfully employed. Be it stated here that Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase's case has held that the Labour Court was not justified in holding that merely because the respondent was receiving agriculture income, she cannot be treated to be engaged in gainful employment. Since the petitioner had income from agriculture pursuits for her livelihood it cannot be stated that petitioner was not gainfully employed and thus would not be entitled full back wages. In view of the forgoing discussion, it is held that the relationship of workman and employer existed between petitioner and respondent and that petitioner was illegally retrenched without compliance of Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Act although remained gainfully employed after her retrenchment. Thus, applying the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court (2007 supra), it may not be erroneous to hold that petitioner was gainfully employed and thus would be not entitled for back wages for the period she was out of job on being terminated by the respondent.

18. Lastly, Ld. Dy. D.A. for State has contended with vehemence that there is inordinate and explained delay which disentitles petitieonr relief claimed for by him. On the other hand, ld. Authorized Representative for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014 Lab IC 4266 (SC) and the relevant paras of the judgment are produced below for reference:

"12. Therefore, in our considered view, the observations made by this Court in the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board case (supra) upon which the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana has placed reliance cannot be applied to the fact situation of the case on hand, for the reason that the Labour Court has erroneously rejected the reference without judiciously considering all the relevant factors of the case particularly the points of dispute referred to it and answered the 2nd issue regarding the reference being barred by limitation but not on the merits of the case. The said decision has no application to the fact situation and also for the reason the catena of decisions of this Court referred to supra, wherein this Court has categorically held that the provisions of Limitation Act under Article 137 has no application to make reference by the appropriate government to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of existing industrial dispute between workmen and the employer.

13. In the case on hand, no doubt there is a delay in raising the dispute by the appellant; the Labour Court nevertheless has the power to mould the relief accordingly. At the time of adjudication, if the dispute referred to the Labour Court is not adjudicated by it, it does not mean that the dispute ceases to exist. The appropriate government in exercise of its statutory power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act can refer the industrial dispute, between the parties, at any time, to either the jurisdictional Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal as interpreted by this Court in the Avon Services case referred to supra. Therefore, the State Government has rightly exercised its power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act and referred the points of dispute to the Labour Court as the same are in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Avon Services & Sapan Kumar Pandit cases referred to supra.

14. Further, the workman cannot be denied to seek relief only on the ground of delay

in raising the dispute as held in the case of S.M. Nilajkar & Ors. v. Telecom District

Manager, Karnataka[4] it was held by this Court as follows-

"17. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that on account of delay in raising the dispute by the appellants the High Court was justified in denying relief to the appellants. We cannot agree...... In Ratan Chandra Sammanta and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra)1993 AIR SCW 2214, it was held that a casual labourer retrenched by the employer deprives himself of remedy available in law by delay itself, lapse of time results in losing the remedy and the right as well. The delay would certainly be fatal if it has resulted in material evidence relevant to adjudication being lost and rendered not available. However, we do not think that the delay in the case at hand has been so culpable as to disentitle the appellants for any relief....." (Emphasis laid by the Court) In view of the legal principles laid down by this Court in the above judgment, the reference of the industrial dispute made in the case on hand by the State Government to the Labour Court to adjudicate the existing industrial dispute between the parties was made within a reasonable time, considering the circumstances in which the workman was placed, firstly, as there was a criminal case pending against her and secondly, the respondent had assured the workman that she would be reinstated after her acquittal from the criminal case. Moreover, it is reasonable to adjudicate the industrial dispute in spite of the delay in raising and referring the matter, since there is no mention of any loss or unavailability of material evidence due to the delay. Thus, we do not consider the delay in raising the industrial dispute and referring the same to the Labour Court for adjudication as gravely erroneous and it does not debar the workman from claiming rightful relief from her employer.

15. In the case of Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum- Processing Service Society Limited & Anr.[5] this Court has opined that relief cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay, stating that:—

2634 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 "10. It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labour court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay in shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date she raised the demand regarding her illegal retrenchment/ termination or dismissal. The Court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full back wages....." (Emphasis laid by the Court)

16. Hence, we are of the opinion, having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case that there is no delay or latches on the part of the workman from the date of her acquittal in the criminal case. Thereafter, upon failure of the respondent in adhering to the assurance given to the workman that she would be reinstated after her acquittal from the criminal case, the workman approached the conciliation officer and the State Government to make a reference to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute with regard to the order of dismissal passed by the respondent. Keeping in mind the date of acquittal of the appellant and the date on which she approached the conciliation officer by raising the dispute, since the respondent had not adhered to its assurance, the State Government had rightly referred the dispute for its adjudication. Therefore it cannot be said that there was a delay on the part of the appellant in raising the dispute and getting it referred to the Labour Court by the State Government.

17. Further, the Labour Court on an erroneous assumption of law framed the additional issue regarding the limitation in raising the dispute and its reference by the State Government to the Labour Court. Thus, the Labour Court has ignored the legal principles laid down by this Court in the cases referred to supra. The award passed by the Labour Court was accepted erroneously by both the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court by dismissing the Civil Writ Petition & the Letters Patent Appeal without examining the case in its proper perspective, keeping in view the power of the State Government under Section 10(1)(c) and the object and intendment of the Act. Not adjudicating the existing industrial dispute on merits between the parties referred to it may lead to disruption of industrial peace and harmony, which is the foremost important aspect in Industrial Jurisprudence as the same would affect the public interest at large.

19. Ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has also contended with vehemence that claim petition is barred by limitation on account of delay and laches. It has been pointed that termination of petitioner in this case took place on 2004 and the industrial dispute was raised after several years of retrenchment. Repudiating the argument by ld. counsel, ld. AR for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment reported in 2007 LHLJ 903 Hon'ble High Court of H.P. (Bhatag Ram's case) in which it has been held that delay in raising dispute may be considered by court at the time of granting final relief however in various other judgments even longer delay has been condoned. In Divisional Manager, HPFC & another vs. Garibu Ram, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 1160, delay of more than 10 years was condoned besides Hon'ble High Court has held that principle of Limitation Act is not applicable to the industrial dispute. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajayab Singh vs. Sirhind Co- operative Marketing- cum-Processing Society Limited and Another, (1999) 6 SCC 82 in which it has been held that the principle of Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply to the proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act.

20. Relying upon the aforestated judgment, it has been contended that claim of petitioner cannot be defeated on the point of delay and laches. Repudiating arguments advanced by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub- Division Kota and Mohan Lal [2013 (139) FLR 125], the relevant para of the judgment are produced below for reference:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 25-F and 10- Limitation Act, 1963- Section 5- Industrial dispute- Termination of service-Finding of Lboaur Court that workman had completed 240 days in calander year and her termination was in violation o section 25-F of the I.D.Act- Wrokman worked from 1.11.1984 to 17.2.1986 in all 286 days during employment. her services terminated on 18.2.1986. Industrial dispute raised after 6 years of termination. Admitted delay of 6 years not kept in view by the Labour Court- Judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court flawed and unsustainable. Reinstatement of the workman not the appropriate relief. In lieu of reinstatement compensation of Rs.one lac directed to be paid to the workman by the appellant- employer within six weeks failing which interest @ workman 9% p.a. will be payable. [Paras 21 and 22] Limitation Act, 1963. Section 5- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Section 25-F- Termination of service- Industrial dispute raised after six years- Limitation Act not applicable to reference made under the I.D. Act-Delay in raising industrial disputes definitely an important circumstances which the Labour Court must keep in view before granting relief".

21. Repudiating the arguments by ld. Dy. D.A. for the State, ld. counsel for claimant/petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Tapash Kumar Paul vs. BSNL & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 357 wherein Hon'ble Court held that a Court may pass an order of reinstatement by awarding compensation but the same has to be based on justifiable grounds. In this judgment, it was held that compensation can be granted in a situation where the industry is closed or that employees has superannuated or going to retire shortly and no period is left to his credit or where workman has been rendered in capacitated to discharge duties cannot be reinstated and/or fourthly when he has lost confidence of the management to discharge duties. It was observed that there may be appropriate cases on facts which may justify substituting an order of reinstatement by award of compensation but that has to be supported by some legal and justifiable reasons indicating why the reinstatement should be followed to be substituted by award of compensation. Ld. counsel for the petitioner with the aid of above-said judgment had argued that there are only four situations when a worker may be awarded compensation instead of reinstatement but the judgment has certainly not been correctly appreciated by ld. counsel as this judgment postulates probable four situations which are illustrate in nature where compensation may be awarded instead of reinstatement but that does not mean that except the four grounds, no other ground would be appropriate for awarding compensation. In the case in hand before this court, it has come that petitioner had abandoned the job who did not report for duty for several years and later gave notice requesting for joining of duties but the conditions in para no.5 of judgment (2015 supra) even if not met requirement, cannot be a ground to reinstate the petitioner and it is only compensation which would be appropriate relief. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'be Apex Court titled as Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and Ors. reported in AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 121, Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014(3) Apex Court Judgments 652. I have gone through these judgments and of view that they don't come to rescue the petitioner on point of reinstatement instead of compensation. Ld. Dy. D.A. for State 2636 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 on the other hand has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh v. Akhilesh Kumar Khare & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 3473. It has been contended that engagement of claimant/petitioner in this case was not through regular mode of recruitment and applying the ratio of this judgment AIR 2015 SC supra, claim of petitioner for reinstatement can be negated and thus compensation would be sufficient for redressal of grievance of the claimant/petitioner. Similarly, in 2016 (1) Him. L.R. 502 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Chaman Singh relied by ld. AR for petitioner interpretation of Section 137 of Limitation Act was involved which provides that Article 137 of Limitation Act did not apply to industrial disputes. In 2014 (3) Apex Court Judgment 652 (SC) similar view was reiterated which clearly mandates that claimant/petitioner cannot be denied relief sought for merely on the ground of delay and laches. That being so, the law remains as it was that ground of delay and laches, claimant/petitioner cannot be denied relief rather the court has to consider various aspects before moulding relief and the case in hand it would not be erroneous to mention here that the claimant/petitioner can be reasonably indemnified by ordering compensation and not by reinstatement. In so far as judgment of AIR 2015 SC 1373 titled as Mackinon Machenize & Company Ltd. vs. Mackinon Employees Union is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held on closure of unit of company principle of 'Last come First go' was not followed which violated Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act and retrenchment was held illegal entitling petitioner for retrenchment compensation. Since the facts of case of Mackinon Machenize's case are different from case in hand as in former closure of unit of company was involved whereas in case in hand before this court, there is no closure of company rather it is the department of HPPWD which had engaged petitioner without following of the procedure although subject to funds and availability of work but in the case in hand petitioner had abandoned the job who never reported for duty. As such, when there is no closure of any unit by respondent which the petitioner was engaged, judgment of Mackinon Machenize cannot be made applicable.

22. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and case law relied by them, it can be safely concluded that delay in raising industrial dispute is certainly important aspect/circumstance which court has to keep in mind while exercising discretion. In para nos. 20 and 21 of the judgment as referred to in this case reported in 2013 (136) FLR 893 (SC) titled as Assistant Engineer Rajasthan Development Corporation and another vs. Geetam Singh provides that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court or Tribunal has to keep in mind all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment (2013 supra) before that workman had worked for 286 days and had raised industrial dispute in 1992 whereas her services have been terminated in 1986 and she raised industrial dispute after six years. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that though compensation awarded by Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court was too low and liable to be enhanced by the Division Bench but surely reinstatement of the workman in the facts and circumstances is not the appropriate relief and thus Hon'ble Apex Court awarded a lump-sum of Rs.1 lakh along-with interest @ 9% per annum if the respondent failed to make payment of compensation within six weeks from the date of judgment. In the case in hand before this court factors which have weighed are that the petitioner in all remained engaged for about 9 years and actually worked for 1144.5 days as per mandays chart on record and that the services of petitioner were disengaged in September, 2004 who worked as non skilled worker and had raised industrial dispute by issuance of demand notice after about seven years i.e. demand notice was given on 26.12.2011. Taking into consideration factors mentioned above in pursuance to judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above, petitioner would not be entitled either for reinstatement or for back wages but a lump-sum compensation would be appropriate relief in view of judgment 2013 (139) FLR2637 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 25 (SC). The judgments relied upon by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner on the matter of delay and laches is more or less settled law that claim of the petitioner could not be solely declined on the ground of delay and laches. Similarly, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in 2014 titled as Raghubir Singh's case also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner as in this judgment also the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the mandate as given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in previous judgment in the year 2013 i.e. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub- Division Kota and Mohan Lal's case. I have gone through these judgments which are not attracted in this present case as this court not declining relief to the petitioner on the ground of limitation rather on the basis of guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court laid down in judgment of 2013.

23. In view of foregoing discussion, a lump-sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) would be appropriate relief to which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above. It is further made clear that amount of compensation shall be paid within four months from the date of Award failing which the petitioner would be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from date of Award till its realization. Issues no. 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO. 4

24. On the plea of non-maintainability of the claim petition under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has failed to allege in reply in what manner petition is not maintainable. Thus, vague plea merits rejection outright. Otherwise also, from pleadings and evidence on record, no inference of claim petition being not maintainable could be raised against claimant/petitioner. This issue is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondent.

RELIEF

25. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, the respondent is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the petitioner in lieu of the reinstatement in services as well as the other consequential service benefits. Amount of compensation so awarded will be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within four months from today failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay the interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of award till the date of its realization. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

26. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

27. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette.

day of May, 2016.

28. File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room. Announced in the open Court today this 5th

(K. K. Sharma) Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal,

Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA (HP)

Ref. No. : 281/2015

Date of Institution : 13.07.2015

Date of Decision : 05.05.2016

Smt. Dalima d/o Shri Bhukh Ram, r/o Village Shour, P.O. Purthi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. ….Petitioner.

Versus

Executive Engineer, Killar Division, H.P.P.W.D. Division Killar, Tehsil Pangi, ....Respondent. District Chamba, H.P.

Reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. O.P. Bhardwaj, Adv.

For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A.

AWARD

The reference given below has been received from the appropriate Government for adjudication:

"Whether the industrial dispute raised by the worker Smt. Dalima D/O Shri Bhukh Ram, R/O Village Shour, P.O. Purthi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. before the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, H.P.P.W.D. Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. vide demand notice dated 07.05.2012 regarding her alleged illegal termination of service during September, 2004 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Smt. Dalima D/O Shri Bhukh Ram, R/O Village Shour, P.O. Purthi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, Killar Division H.P.P.W.D. Killar, Thesil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. during September, 2004 without complying 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 aggrieved workman is entitled to from the above employer?" 2. On receipt of reference from appropriate government, notices were issued to the parties in pursuance to which claimant/petitioner has filed statement of claim.

3. Brief facts as enumerated in the present claim petition by the petitioner above named reveal that she had been initially engaged as daily waged beldar on muster roll basis in the year 1991 who continuously worked till October, 2004 with the respondent. Averments made in the petition further revealed that petitioner had worked for 160 days in each calendar year as the criteria prescribed for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil District Chamba and became eligible for continuous service envisaged under statutory provisions of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity). Averments made in the petition revealed that the services of petitioner had interrupted by way of intermittent/artificial breaks given by the respondent/department deliberately and as such breaks are required to be counted as continuous services for the purposes of calculation of 160 days so as for the2639 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. The grievance of petitioner remains that respondent/department had terminated/disengaged petitioner from daily wage service orally without issuing any one month notice in writing indicating the reason for retrenchment besides no retrenchment compensation was paid to petitioner while respondent had illegally terminated her service. It is contended that respondent had not followed the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act while disengaging the services of petitioner. It is stated that petitioner is very poor and no source of income besides after termination of the services of petitioner, she had approached the respondent time and again but of no avail. Grievance of petitioner further remains that when the services of petitioner have been terminated, respondent/department had reengaged number of new workman from time to time and respondent had not followed the principle of 'Last come, First go' as envisaged under Section 25-G of the Act. It is further alleged that respondent/department had continuously retained junior to petitioner and who are still in service with the respondent namely Kram Dev who appointed in 1997, Sher Singh in 1996, Bameshwar Dutt and Raj Kumar in 2011, Ram Dei in 2003 and Dev Raj in 2004. The claimant/petitioner claimed that she had spotless service record who never been charge-sheeted for any act of indiscipline or negligence or her conduct and even at the time of verbal termination, no charge-sheet had been served upon her and the at the same time, no opportunity of hearing had been afforded to him. The petitioner also alleges that she has remained unemployed ever since her illegal termination from month of October, 2004 till the date of institution of present claim petition who had been nowhere gainfully employed and was thus entitled for full back wages. Accordingly alleging respondent to have committed violation of statutory provision of Section 25-F, Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for setting aside oral order of termination/retrenchment by the respondent in the month of October, 2004. she further prayed for reinstatement in service w.e.f. month of October, 2004 along-with back wages, seniority including continuity in service as petitioner has remained unemployed since the date of her illegal termination. The petitioner has also prayed that period of intermittent/fictional breaks given time and again during entire service of petitioner between 1991 to October, 2004 be counted 160 days continuous service and regularization of the service of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1999 having completed 8 years of service and per the policy of HP Govt. in pursuance to law settled by Hon'ble High Court of H.P. and to any other relief petitioner is entitled.

4. The respondent contested claim petition, filed reply inter-alia taken preliminary objections of maintainability, claim petition being bad on account of delay and laches. On merits denied that petitioner had worked for more than 160 days in each calendar year rather clarified by stating that petitioner was engaged as daily waged beldar in 1993 who remained engaged till 2004 but had worked intermittently as petitioner used to come and attend the work at her own sweet will and convenience. Relying upon the mandays chart, it has been categorically pleaded by the respondent that petitioner had not completed 160 days in each calendar year as required for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil. Allegations of fictional breaks given by respondent to the petitioner have been denied. In so far as engagement of persons junior to petitioner mentioned in para no. 10 of the claim petition were appointed as per order of Labour Court and no other juniors to the petitioner had been retained in service by the respondent. On the plea of termination of service of petitioner, respondent specifically alleges that petitioner had left the job at her own will therefore serving of notice or pay in lieu thereof was not required. Reiterating its stand respondent has maintained that petitioner had left the work of her own sweet will and the persons mentioned in para no.10 are stated to have engaged as per direction of the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal Dharamshala and respondent had not violated the principle of 'Last come, First go'. It is also contended that if petitioner had been terminated in 2004 she would have definitely raised industrial dispute immediately and that after seven years petitioner is stated to be agitating the matter which is bad on account of delay and laches. It is also contended that since the services of petitioner had not been terminated by the 2640 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 respondent, question of issuance of notice or wages in lieu thereof did not arise and at the same time, there was no necessity for charge-sheet or issuing any notice of petitioner after her termination. It is contended that petitioner was agriculturist and gainfully employed and was thus not entitled for back wages.

5. The petitioner filed rejoinder, reiterated her stand as maintained in the claim petition. Further asserted that provisions of Limitation Act did not eclipse the claim of petitioner in totality besides allegation of violation of principle of 'Last come First go' was specifically denied.

6. In order to prove her case, petitioner had examined herself as PW1 tendered/proved her affidavit Ex. PW1/A under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, copy of demand notice Ex. PW1/B, copy of reply dated 6.10.2012 Ex. PW1/C, copy of report under Section 12(4) of I.D. Act Ex. PW1/D, Ex. PW1/E copy of order dated 30.5.2015, Ex. PW1/F copy of order dated 28.2.2011 and Ex. PW1/G mandays cahrt and closed evidence. On the other hand, repudiating the evidence led by the petitioner, respondent examined RW1 Shri Bal Krishan Kapil, the then Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Killar as RW1 tendered/proved mandays chart of petitioner Ex. RW1/B, Ex. RW1/C1 to Ex. RW1/C6 copy of orders/awards and closed the evidence.

7. I have heard the ld. counsel of petitioner and ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent, gone through records of the case carefully relevant for disposed of this case.

8. From the contentions raised, following issues were framed on 27.11.2015 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated 07.05.2012 qua her termination of service during September, 2004 by respondent suffers from the vice of delay and laches as alleged? If so, its effect? …OPP.

2. Whether termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent during September, 2004 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged? … OPP.

3. If issue no. 2 is proved in affirmative, to what service benefits the petitioner is …OPP. entitled to?

4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? …OPR.

Relief.

9. For the reasons detailed here under, my findings on the above issues are as follows:—

Issue No.1 : Yes

Issue No.2 : Yes

Issue No.3 : Discussed

Issue No.4 : No

Relief. : Petition is partly allowed awarding compensation Rs.1,25,000/- per operative part of award.

ISSUES NO. 1 TO 3

10. All these issues have been taken up together for discussion being interconnected which can be disposed of simultaneously without repetition of evidence.

11. Relationship of petitioner having been engaged as daily waged beldar by respondent on muster roll basis in the year 1993 continuously worked till September, 2004 with the respondent is not in dispute. Admittedly, petitioner was engaged without any written order or settlement of terms and conditions by the respondent. It is equally not in dispute that no written order was passed while terminating service of the petitioner as claim of respondent remains that it had not retrenched petitioner from service who had abandoned the job of her own and used to work intermittently as per her own wish and convenience. Admittedly, the reference of appropriate govt. does not relate to plea of fictional breaks but only with regard to petitioner's termination from service. In the backdrop of foregoing admitted facts on record, claim of petitioner requires to be adjudicated with a view to determine if petitioner is entitled for relief of reinstatement and back wages along-with seniority and past service benefits and compensation as claimed by him.

12. Stepping into witness box as PW1 has sworn in affidavit Ex. PW1/A reiterating and reaffirming her pleadings as stipulated in claim petition. In her affidavit she has claimed to have worked with the respondent/department for more than 160 days in Pangi Sub Division Chamba District and remained engaged from 1993 to September, 2004. she has also stated on oath that no notice under Section 25-F of the Act was given by the respondent before terminating her service and at the same time no compensation in lieu thereof notice period was paid to her and thus her termination was illegal and void entitling petitioner benefit of reinstatement of service with full back wages and all the other consequential service benefits. The petitioner has further alleged on oath that respondent/department after terminating her services in September, 2004 by oral order had engaged several co-workers who were junior to petitioner were retained in service. Not only this, the persons who were junior to petitioner are stated to have been regularized in service and thus respondent had not followed the mandate of Sections 25-G and 25- H of the Act which was obligatory on its part. The case of petitioner also remains that she had served respondent with due diligence and had spotless service record as respondent/department had never called any explanation or raised charge-sheet against her but even while retrenching petitioner from service, no notice was given. The petitioner has also explained reason for not approaching the authorities under Labour Act and thereafter before this Tribunal, as there existed no road between Chamba town to Pangi Tehsil till 2012 and petitioner had moved before the Labour Officer raising demand notice consequent upon which a failure report was submitted and as the Labour Commissioner did not make reference for industrial dispute raised by petitioner, the petitioner had moved before the Hon'ble High Court by filing CWP where direction was passed for making reference to the Labour Court due to which delay had occurred and same was satisfactorily explained.

13. In so far as plea of abandonment raised by respondent is concerned, the same merits rejection in view of the fact that respondent had failed to produce any record by which it could be established that whenever petitioner absented from her duty as also reflected in mandays chart Ex. RW1/B any notice or letter was ever issued. On this point respondent as RW1 has specifically admitted that whenever petitioner abandoned the job, no notice had been issued. RW1 specifically admitted that no departmental inquiry was initiated against petitioner even after September, 2004. No reason whatsoever has been assigned for such any action or omission on the part of respondent in not initiating any departmental proceedings or making 2642 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 correspondence calling upon the petitioner to join service. This prima facie belies the stand taken by the respondent as abandonment has to be proved like any other fact in issue. The petitioner, on the other hand, as PW1 in cross-examination has specifically denied that she used to leave the job in between and attended the work intermittently rather she has claimed that intermit breaks had been deliberately given to her by the respondent in the service record of petitioner so that petitioner did not complete 160 days of work as required for Pangi Tehsil area and also for applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. As such, in absence of any specific and reliable evidence led by respondent, it would be unsafe to hold that respondent had established plea of abandonment.

14. A bare glance on the mandays chart Ex. RW1/B would reveal that petitioner had worked for 167 days in the year 1993, 178 days in 1994, 111 days in 1995, 154 days in 1996, 134 days in 1997, 132 days in 1998, 117 days in 1999, 124 days in 2000, 112 days in 2001, 129 days in 2002, 119 days in 2003 and 94 days in 2004 and thus a total of her service in 1993 to 2004 in 12 years she had worked for 1571 days in her entire service period. Be it noticed that except the years, 1995 to 2004 petitioner had worked for more than 160 days and as there is no reference from the Labour Commissioner, Shimla on the point of artificial breaks, this court is to confine its findings only with regard to alleged illegal termination. It is evident from mandays chart Ex. RW1/B that in the year 2004 the petitioner had merely worked for 94 days and thus immediately in preceding 12 calendar months from the month of termination of petitioner had not rendered service of 160 days so as to meet requirement of law of having continuous service of one year and thus it was not at all required from respondent to have issued a notice envisaged under Section 25-F of the Act. As such, the respondent is held to have not violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

15. Ld. counsel for petitioner has contended with vehemence that large number of workers who were junior to petitioner had been appointed and these workers have been retained in service and regularized. The grievance of petitioner remains that principle of 'Last come First go' was not followed as the juniors were retained and services of petitioner despite being senior was terminated without any valid reason. Ex. RW1/C is the year-wise mandays of daily waged workers who were junior to the petitioner and had joined in the year 1994 or thereafter. All of these co-workers shown in Ex. RW1/C the year-wise mandays details of workers of Division HPPWD Killar were certainly junior to petitioner who were given sufficient work existing in those years more than 200 days in a year whereas the petitioner had been not given muster roll for the whole month. Ex. RW1/C also established that all the co- workers shown in this document have worked for more than 160 days in most of the years although they were junior to petitioner. Evidently, there is no iota of evidence of respondent establishing that petitioner was called upon to join for service at any time after September, 2004 even at the time when junior persons were reengaged. That being so the respondent had certainly violated the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act as the juniors workers mentioned in para no.10 of the affidavit were retained whereas petitioner was senior from these co-workers having joined service in 1993 was terminated and even thereafter respondent omitted to afford opportunity to petitioner for reemployment for work which also violates the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of Central Bank of India vs. S. Satyam, 1996 (5) SCC 419 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for the applicability of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act, there was no necessity of claimant/petitioner to have worked for 240 days as in case of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

16. Repudiating claim of petitioner, the respondent, on the other hand, has made futile attempt to justify engagement of junior workers and their retention in service on the basis of orders of Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Court of H.P. as2643 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 reflected in Ex. RW1/C1 to Ex RW1/C6. These judgments/orders have been gone through which revealed that respondent had wrongly terminated the services of those claimant/petitioner and for said reasons they were directed to be reinstated. Thus, plea that persons were directed to be appointed in pursuance to awards/orders Ext. Rw1/C1 to Ex. RW1/C6 were primarily on the basis of court orders would not defeat the claim of the petitioner as status of these person being junior to petitioner does not get negatived. As such, even when petitioner is proved to have not worked for more than 160 days in preceding 8 years which entitled her for regularization of her service per government policy, yet respondent is not absolved from its accountability of provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act and as such it is held that respondent had violated the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. 17. Ld. counsel for petitioner has contended that after petitioner's termination in September, 2004, she had remained unemployed and was not earning anything thereafter as such was entitled for full back wages. Repudiating the arguments of ld. Authorized Representative of petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. for the State has taken this court through cross-examination of the petitioner who has admitted that she had cultivatable land with her and also worked a private labourer. Thus, plea of having remained not gainfully employed gets belied admission of petitioner in cross-examination in which she had maintained that she had been earning from agricultural land as well as she has been working as daily wager privately. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. M. Nagangouda (2007) 10 SCC 765 in which Division Bench comprising of Justice A.R. Lakshmanan and Justice Altamas Kabir had held that 'term gainfully employment would also include self employment wherefrom income is generated. It was income either from employment in an establishment or from self employment merely differentiates the sources from which income is generated, the end use being the same'. Applying the ratio of judgment of 2007 (supra) to this case since the petitioner was earning from her agricultural and manual pursuits, the same were sufficient to maintain her and her family. It is thus held that petitioner was gainfully employed. Be it stated here that Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase's case has held that the Labour Court was not justified in holding that merely because the respondent was receiving agriculture income, she cannot be treated to be engaged in gainful employment. Since the petitioner had income from agriculture pursuits for her livelihood it cannot be stated that petitioner was not gainfully employed and thus would not be entitled full back wages. In view of the forgoing discussion, it is held that the relationship of workman and employer existed between petitioner and respondent and that petitioner was illegally retrenched without compliance of Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Act although remained gainfully employed after her retrenchment. Thus, applying the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court (2007 supra), it may not be erroneous to hold that petitioner was gainfully employed and thus would be not entitled for back wages for the period she was out of job on being terminated by the respondent.

18. Lastly, Ld. Dy. D.A. for State has contended with vehemence that there is inordinate and explained delay which disentitles petitieonr relief claimed for by him. On the other hand, ld. Authorized Representative for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014 Lab IC 4266 (SC) and the relevant paras of the judgment are produced below for reference:

"12. Therefore, in our considered view, the observations made by this Court in the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board case (supra) upon which the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana has placed reliance cannot be applied to the fact situation of the case on hand, for the reason that the Labour Court has erroneously rejected the reference without judiciously considering all the relevant2644 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 factors of the case particularly the points of dispute referred to it and answered the 2nd issue regarding the reference being barred by limitation but not on the merits of the case. The said decision has no application to the fact situation and also for the reason the catena of decisions of this Court referred to supra, wherein this Court has categorically held that the provisions of Limitation Act under Article 137 has no application to make reference by the appropriate government to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of existing industrial dispute between workmen and the employer.

13. In the case on hand, no doubt there is a delay in raising the dispute by the appellant; the Labour Court nevertheless has the power to mould the relief accordingly. At the time of adjudication, if the dispute referred to the Labour Court is not adjudicated by it, it does not mean that the dispute ceases to exist. The appropriate government in exercise of its statutory power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act can refer the industrial dispute, between the parties, at any time, to either the jurisdictional Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal as interpreted by this Court in the Avon Services case referred to supra. Therefore, the State Government has rightly exercised its power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act and referred the points of dispute to the Labour Court as the same are in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Avon Services & Sapan Kumar Pandit cases referred to supra.

14. Further, the workman cannot be denied to seek relief only on the ground of delay in raising the dispute as held in the case of S.M. Nilajkar & Ors. v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka[4] it was held by this Court as follows—

"17. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that on account of delay in raising the dispute by the appellants the High Court was justified in denying relief to the appellants. We cannot agree...... In Ratan Chandra Sammanta and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra)1993 AIR SCW 2214, it was held that a casual labourer retrenched by the employer deprives himself of remedy available in law by delay itself, lapse of time results in losing the remedy and the right as well. The delay would certainly be fatal if it has resulted in material evidence relevant to adjudication being lost and rendered not available. However, we do not think that the delay in the case at hand has been so culpable as to disentitle the appellants for any relief....." (Emphasis laid by the Court) In view of the legal principles laid down by this Court in the above judgment, the reference of the industrial dispute made in the case on hand by the State Government to the Labour Court to adjudicate the existing industrial dispute between the parties was made within a reasonable time, considering the circumstances in which the workman was placed, firstly, as there was a criminal case pending against her and secondly, the respondent had assured the workman that she would be reinstated after her acquittal from the criminal case. Moreover, it is reasonable to adjudicate the industrial dispute in spite of the delay in raising and referring the matter, since there is no mention of any loss or unavailability of material evidence due to the delay. Thus, we do not consider the delay in raising the industrial dispute and referring the same to the Labour Court for adjudication as gravely erroneous and it does not debar the workman from claiming rightful relief from her employer.

15. In the case of Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum- Processing Service Society Limited & Anr.[5] this Court has opined that relief cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay, stating that:-

"10. It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the act and that the relief under it2645 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labour court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay in shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date she raised the demand regarding her illegal retrenchment/ termination or dismissal. The Court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full back wages....." (Emphasis laid by the Court)

16. Hence, we are of the opinion, having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case that there is no delay or latches on the part of the workman from the date of her acquittal in the criminal case. Thereafter, upon failure of the respondent in adhering to the assurance given to the workman that she would be reinstated after her acquittal from the criminal case, the workman approached the conciliation officer and the State Government to make a reference to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute with regard to the order of dismissal passed by the respondent. Keeping in mind the date of acquittal of the appellant and the date on which she approached the conciliation officer by raising the dispute, since the respondent had not adhered to its assurance, the State Government had rightly referred the dispute for its adjudication. Therefore it cannot be said that there was a delay on the part of the appellant in raising the dispute and getting it referred to the Labour Court by the State Government.

17. Further, the Labour Court on an erroneous assumption of law framed the additional issue regarding the limitation in raising the dispute and its reference by the State Government to the Labour Court. Thus, the Labour Court has ignored the legal principles laid down by this Court in the cases referred to supra. The award passed by the Labour Court was accepted erroneously by both the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court by dismissing the Civil Writ Petition & the Letters Patent Appeal without examining the case in its proper perspective, keeping in view the power of the State Government under Section 10(1)(c) and the object and intendment of the Act. Not adjudicating the existing industrial dispute on merits between the parties referred to it may lead to disruption of industrial peace and harmony, which is the foremost important aspect in Industrial Jurisprudence as the same would affect the public interest at large.

19. Ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has also contended with vehemence that claim petition is barred by limitation on account of delay and laches. It has been pointed that termination of petitioner in this case took place on 2004 and the industrial dispute was raised after several years of retrenchment. Repudiating the argument by ld. counsel, ld. AR for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment reported in 2007 LHLJ 903 Hon'ble High Court of H.P. (Bhatag Ram's case) in which it has been held that delay in raising dispute may be considered by court at the time of granting final relief however in various other judgments even longer delay has been condoned. In Divisional Manager, HPFC & another vs. Garibu Ram, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 1160, delay of more than 10 years was condoned besides Hon'ble High Court has held that principle of Limitation Act is not applicable to the industrial dispute. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajayab Singh vs. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing- cum-Processing Society Limited and Another, (1999) 6 SCC 82 in which it has been held that the principle of Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply to the proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act.

20. Relying upon the aforestated judgment, it has been contended that claim of petitioner cannot be defeated on the point of delay and laches. Repudiating arguments 2646 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 advanced by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub- Division Kota and Mohan Lal [2013 (139) FLR 125], the relevant para of the judgment are produced below for reference:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 25-F and 10- Limitation Act, 1963- Section 5- Industrial dispute- Termination of service-Finding of Lboaur Court that workman had completed 240 days in calander year and her termination was in violation o section 25-F of the I.D.Act- Wrokman worked from 1.11.1984 to 17.2.1986 in all 286 days during employment. her services terminated on 18.2.1986. Industrial dispute raised after 6 years of termination. Admitted delay of 6 years not kept in view by the Labour Court- Judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court flawed and unsustainable. Reinstatement of the workman not the appropriate relief. In lieu of reinstatement compensation of Rs.one lac directed to be paid to the workman by the appellant- employer within six weeks failing which interest @ workman 9% p.a. will be payable. [Paras 21 and 22] Limitation Act, 1963. Section 5- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Section 25-F- Termination of service- Industrial dispute raised after six years- Limitation Act not applicable to reference made under the I.D. Act-Delay in raising industrial disputes definitely an important circumstances which the Labour Court must keep in view before granting relief".

21. Repudiating the arguments by ld. Dy. D.A. for the State, ld. counsel for claimant/petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Tapash Kumar Paul vs. BSNL & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 357 wherein Hon'ble Court held that a Court may pass an order of reinstatement by awarding compensation but the same has to be based on justifiable grounds. In this judgment, it was held that compensation can be granted in a situation where the industry is closed or that employees has superannuated or going to retire shortly and no period is left to his credit or where workman has been rendered in capacitated to discharge duties cannot be reinstated and/or fourthly when he has lost confidence of the management to discharge duties. It was observed that there may be appropriate cases on facts which may justify substituting an order of reinstatement by award of compensation but that has to be supported by some legal and justifiable reasons indicating why the reinstatement should be followed to be substituted by award of compensation. Ld. counsel for the petitioner with the aid of above-said judgment had argued that there are only four situations when a worker may be awarded compensation instead of reinstatement but the judgment has certainly not been correctly appreciated by ld. counsel as this judgment postulates probable four situations which are illustrate in nature where compensation may be awarded instead of reinstatement but that does not mean that except the four grounds, no other ground would be appropriate for awarding compensation. In the case in hand before this court, it has come that petitioner had abandoned the job who did not report for duty for several years and later gave notice requesting for joining of duties but the conditions in para no.5 of judgment (2015 supra) even if not met requirement, cannot be a ground to reinstate the petitioner and it is only compensation which would be appropriate relief. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'be Apex Court titled as Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and Ors. reported in AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 121, Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014(3) Apex Court Judgments 652. I have gone through these judgments and of view that they don't come to rescue the petitioner on point of reinstatement instead of compensation. Ld. Dy. D.A. for State on the other hand has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh v. Akhilesh Kumar Khare & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 3473. It has been contended that engagement of claimant/petitioner in this2647 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 case was not through regular mode of recruitment and applying the ratio of this judgment AIR 2015 SC supra, claim of petitioner for reinstatement can be negated and thus compensation would be sufficient for redressal of grievance of the claimant/petitioner. Similarly, in 2016 (1) Him. L.R. 502 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Chaman Singh relied by ld. AR for petitioner interpretation of Section 137 of Limitation Act was involved which provides that Article 137 of Limitation Act did not apply to industrial disputes. In 2014 (3) Apex Court Judgment 652 (SC) similar view was reiterated which clearly mandates that claimant/petitioner cannot be denied relief sought for merely on the ground of delay and laches. That being so, the law remains as it was that ground of delay and laches, claimant/petitioner cannot be denied relief rather the court has to consider various aspects before moulding relief and the case in hand it would not be erroneous to mention here that the claimant/petitioner can be reasonably indemnified by ordering compensation and not by reinstatement. In so far as judgment of AIR 2015 SC 1373 titled as Mackinon Machenize & Company Ltd. vs. Mackinon Employees Union is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held on closure of unit of company principle of 'Last come First go' was not followed which violated Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act and retrenchment was held illegal entitling petitioner for retrenchment compensation. Since the facts of case of Mackinon Machenize's case are different from case in hand as in former closure of unit of company was involved whereas in case in hand before this court, there is no closure of company rather it is the department of HPPWD which had engaged petitioner without following of the procedure although subject to funds and availability of work but in the case in hand petitioner had abandoned the job who never reported for duty. As such, when there is no closure of any unit by respondent which the petitioner was engaged, judgment of Mackinon Machenize cannot be made applicable.

22. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and case law relied by them, it can be safely concluded that delay in raising industrial dispute is certainly important aspect/circumstance which court has to keep in mind while exercising discretion. In para nos. 20 and 21 of the judgment as referred to in this case reported in 2013 (136) FLR 893 (SC) titled as Assistant Engineer Rajasthan Development Corporation and another vs. Geetam Singh provides that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court or Tribunal has to keep in mind all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment (2013 supra) before that workman had worked for 286 days and had raised industrial dispute in 1992 whereas her services have been terminated in 1986 and she raised industrial dispute after six years. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that though compensation awarded by Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court was too low and liable to be enhanced by the Division Bench but surely reinstatement of the workman in the facts and circumstances is not the appropriate relief and thus Hon'ble Apex Court awarded a lump-sum of Rs.1 lakh along-with interest @ 9% per annum if the respondent failed to make payment of compensation within six weeks from the date of judgment. In the case in hand before this court factors which have weighed are that the petitioner in all remained engaged for about 12 years and actually worked for 1571 days as per mandays chart on record and that the services of petitioner were disengaged in September, 2004 who worked as non skilled worker and had raised industrial dispute by issuance of demand notice after about seven years i.e. demand notice was given on 7.5.2012. Taking into consideration factors mentioned above in pursuance to judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above, petitioner would not be entitled either for reinstatement or for back wages but a lump-sum compensation would be appropriate relief in view of judgment 2013 (139) FLR 25 (SC). The judgments relied upon by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner on the matter of delay and laches is more or less settled law that claim of the petitioner could not be solely declined on the ground of delay and laches. Similarly, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in 2014 titled as Raghubir Singh's case also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner as in 2648 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 this judgment also the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the mandate as given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in previous judgment in the year 2013 i.e. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub- Division Kota and Mohan Lal's case. I have gone through these judgments which are not attracted in this present case as this court not declining relief to the petitioner on the ground of limitation rather on the basis of guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court laid down in judgment of 2013.

23. In view of foregoing discussion, a lump-sum compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand only) would be appropriate relief to which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above. It is further made clear that amount of compensation shall be paid within four months from the date of Award failing which the petitioner would be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from date of Award till its realization. Issues no. 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO. 4

24. On the plea of non-maintainability of the claim petition under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has failed to allege in reply in what manner petition is not maintainable. Thus, vague plea merits rejection outright. Otherwise also, from pleadings and evidence on record, no inference of claim petition being not maintainable could be raised against claimant/petitioner. This issue is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondent.

RELIEF

25. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, the respondent is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand only) to the petitioner in lieu of the reinstatement in services as well as the other consequential service benefits. Amount of compensation so awarded will be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within four months from today failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay the interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of award till the date of its realization. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

26. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

27. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette.

28. File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room. Announced in the open Court today this 5th day of May, 2016.

(K. K. Sharma) Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal,

Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA (HP)

Ref. No. : 328/2015

Date of Institution : 21.07.2015

Date of Decision : 05.05.2016

Shri Jog Singh s/o Shri Ram Ditta, r/o Village Mouch, P.O. Kironi Kothi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. ….Petitioner.

Versus

Executive Engineer, I.&P.H./H.P.P.W.D. Division Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District ....Respondent. Chamba, H.P.

Reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. O.P. Bhardwaj, Adv.

For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A.

AWARD

The reference given below has been received from the appropriate Government for adjudication:

"Whether the industrial dispute raised by the worker Shri Jog Singh S/O Shri Ram Ditta, R/O Village Mouch, P.O. Kironi Kothi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. before the Executive Engineer, I.&P.H./H.P.P.W.D. Division, Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. vide demand notice 06.10.2011 regarding his alleged illegal termination of service during September, 2004 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Shri Jog Singh S/O Shri Ram Ditta, R/O Village Mouch, P.O. Kironi Kothi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, I.&P.H./H.P.P.W.D. Division Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. during September, 2004 without complying 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 aggrieved workman is entitled to from the above employer?"

2. On receipt of reference from appropriate government, notices were issued to the parties in pursuance to which claimant/petitioner has filed statement of claim.

3. Brief facts as enumerated in the present claim petition by the petitioner above named reveal that he had been initially engaged as daily waged beldar on muster roll basis in the year 1991 who continuously worked till October, 2004 with the respondent. Averments made in the petition further revealed that petitioner had worked for 160 days in each calendar year as the criteria prescribed for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil District Chamba and became eligible for continuous service envisaged under statutory provisions of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity). Averments made in the petition revealed that the services of petitioner had interrupted by way of intermittent/artificial breaks given by the respondent/department deliberately and as such breaks are required to 2650 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 be counted as continuous services for the purposes of calculation of 160 days so as for the applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. The grievance of petitioner remains that respondent/department had terminated/disengaged petitioner from daily wage service orally without issuing any one month notice in writing indicating the reason for retrenchment besides no retrenchment compensation was paid to petitioner while respondent had illegally terminated his service. It is contended that respondent had not followed the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act while disengaging the services of petitioner. It is stated that petitioner is very poor and no source of income besides after termination of the services of petitioner, he had approached the respondent time and again but of no avail. Grievance of petitioner further remains that when the services of petitioner have been terminated, respondent/department had reengaged number of new workman from time to time and respondent had not followed the principle of 'Last come, First go' as envisaged under Section 25-G of the Act. It is further alleged that respondent/department had continuously retained junior to petitioner and who are still in service with the respondent namely Suraj Ram who appointed in 1997, Chunku Ram in 2000, Budhi Ram in 2003 and Dev Raj in 2007. The claimant/petitioner claimed that he had spotless service record who never been charge-sheeted for any act of indiscipline or negligence or his conduct and even at the time of verbal termination, no charge-sheet had been served upon his and the at the same time, no opportunity of hearing had been afforded to him. The petitioner also alleges that he has remained unemployed ever since his illegal termination from month of October, 2005 till the date of institution of present claim petition who had been nowhere gainfully employed and was thus entitled for full back wages. Accordingly alleging respondent to have committed violation of statutory provision of Section 25-F, Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for setting aside oral order of termination/retrenchment by the respondent in the month of October, 2004. He further prayed for reinstatement in service w.e.f. month of October, 2004 along-with back wages, seniority including continuity in service as petitioner has remained unemployed since the date of his illegal termination. The petitioner has also prayed that period of intermittent/fictional breaks given time and again during entire service of petitioner between 1991 to October, 2004 be counted 160 days continuous service and regularization of the service of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2001 having completed 8 years of service and per the policy of HP Govt. in pursuance to law settled by Hon'ble High Court of H.P. and to any other relief petitioner is entitled.

4. The respondent contested claim petition, filed reply inter-alia taken preliminary objections of maintainability, claim petition being bad on account of delay and laches. On merits denied that petitioner had worked for more than 160 days in each calendar year rather clarified by stating that petitioner was engaged as daily waged beldar in 1991 who remained engaged till 2004 but had worked intermittently as petitioner used to come and attend the work at his own sweet will and convenience. Relying upon the mandays chart, it has been categorically pleaded by the respondent that petitioner had not completed 160 days in each calendar year as required for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil. Allegations of fictional breaks given by respondent to the petitioner have been denied. In so far as engagement of persons junior to petitioner mentioned in para no. 10 of the claim petition were appointed as per order of Labour Court and no other juniors to the petitioner had been retained in service by the respondent. On the plea of termination of service of petitioner, respondent specifically alleges that petitioner had left the job at his own will therefore serving of notice or pay in lieu thereof was not required. Reiterating its stand respondent has maintained that petitioner had left the work of his own sweet will and the persons mentioned in para no.10 are stated to have engaged as per direction of the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal Dharamshala and respondent had not violated the principle of 'Last come, First go'. It is also contended that if petitioner had been terminated in 2004 he would have definitely raised industrial dispute immediately and that after seven years petitioner is stated to be agitating the matter which is bad on account of delay2651 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 and laches. It is also contended that since the services of petitioner had not been terminated by the respondent, question of issuance of notice or wages in lieu thereof did not arise and at the same time, there was no necessity for charge-sheet or issuing any notice of petitioner after his termination. It is contended that petitioner was agriculturist and gainfully employed and was thus not entitled for back wages.

5. The petitioner filed rejoinder, reiterated his stand as maintained in the claim petition. Further asserted that provisions of Limitation Act did not eclipse the claim of petitioner in totality besides allegation of violation of principle of 'Last come First go' was specifically denied.

6. In order to prove his case, petitioner had examined himself as PW1 tendered/proved his affidavit Ex. PW1/A under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, copy of demand notice dated Ex. PW1/B, copy of reply dated 23.3.2012 Ex. PW1/C, copy of report under Section 12(4) I.D. Act Ex. PW1/D, copy of order dated 27.4.2015 Ex. PW1/E, copy of order dated 28.2.20111 Ex. PW1/F, copy of manday chart Ex. PW1/G and closed evidence. On the other hand, repudiating the evidence led by the petitioner, respondent examined RW1 Shri Bal Krishan Kapil, the then Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Killar as RW1 tendered/proved mandays chart of petitioner Ex. RW1/B, Ex. RW1/C copy of mandays chart of co-workers, Ex. RW1/C1 to Ex. RW1/C4 copy of orders/awards and closed the evidence.

7. I have heard the ld. counsel of petitioner and ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent, gone through records of the case carefully relevant for disposed of this case.

8. From the contentions raised, following issues were framed on 27.11.2015 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated 6.10.2011 qua his termination of service during September, 2004 by respondent suffers from the vice of delay and laches as alleged? If so, its effect? …OPP.

2. Whether termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent during September, 2004 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged? … OPP.

entitled to?

3. If issue no. 2 is proved in affirmative, to what service benefits the petitioner is …OPP. 4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? …OPR Relief.

9. For the reasons detailed here under, my findings on the above issues are as follows:—

Issue No.1 : Yes

Issue No.2 : Yes

Issue No.3 : Discussed

Issue No.4 : No

Relief. : Petition is partly allowed awarding compensation Rs.80,000/- per operative part of award.

ISSUES NO.1 TO 3

10. All these issues have been taken up together for discussion being interconnected which can be disposed of simultaneously without repetition of evidence.

11. Relationship of petitioner having been engaged as daily waged beldar by respondent on muster roll basis in the year 1991 continuously worked till September, 2004 with the respondent is not in dispute. Admittedly, petitioner was engaged without any written order or settlement of terms and conditions by the respondent. It is equally not in dispute that no written order was passed while terminating service of the petitioner as claim of respondent remains that it had not retrenched petitioner from service who had abandoned the job of his own and used to work intermittently as per his own wish and convenience. Admittedly, the reference of appropriate govt. does not relate to plea of fictional breaks but only with regard to petitioner's termination from service. In the backdrop of foregoing admitted facts on record, claim of petitioner requires to be adjudicated with a view to determine if petitioner is entitled for relief of reinstatement and back wages along-with seniority and past service benefits and compensation as claimed by him.

12. Stepping into witness box as PW1 has sworn in affidavit Ex. PW1/A reiterating and reaffirming his pleadings as stipulated in claim petition. In his affidavit he has claimed to have worked with the respondent/department for more than 160 days in Pangi Sub Division Chamba District and remained engaged from 1991 to September, 2004. He has also stated on oath that no notice under Section 25-F of the Act was given by the respondent before terminating his service and at the same time no compensation in lieu thereof notice period was paid to his and thus his termination was illegal and void entitling petitioner benefit of reinstatement of service with full back wages and all the other consequential service benefits. The petitioner has further alleged on oath that respondent/department after terminating his services in September, 2004 by oral order had engaged several co-workers who were junior to petitioner were retained in service. Not only this, the persons who were junior to petitioner are stated to have been regularized in service and thus respondent had not followed the mandate of Sections 25-G and 25- H of the Act which was obligatory on its part. The case of petitioner also remains that he had served respondent with due diligence and had spotless service record as respondent/department had never called any explanation or raised charge-sheet against his but even while retrenching petitioner from service, no notice was given. The petitioner has also explained reason for not approaching the authorities under Labour Act and thereafter before this Tribunal, as there existed no road between Chamba town to Pangi Tehsil till 2011 and petitioner had moved before the Labour Officer raising demand notice consequent upon which a failure report was submitted and as the Labour Commissioner did not make reference for industrial dispute raised by petitioner, the petitioner had moved before the Hon'ble High Court by filing CWP where direction was passed for making reference to the Labour Court due to which delay had occurred and same was satisfactorily explained.

13. In so far as plea of abandonment raised by respondent is concerned, the same merits rejection in view of the fact that respondent had failed to produce any record by which it could be established that whenever petitioner absented from his duty as also reflected in mandays chart Ex. RW1/B any notice or letter was ever issued. On this point respondent as RW1 has specifically admitted that whenever petitioner abandoned the job, no notice had been issued. RW1 specifically admitted that no departmental inquiry was initiated against petitioner even after September, 2004. No reason whatsoever has been assigned for such any action or omission on the part of respondent in not initiating any departmental proceedings or making2653 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 correspondence calling upon the petitioner to join service. This prima facie belies the stand taken by the respondent as abandonment has to be proved like any other fact in issue. The petitioner, on the other hand, as PW1 in cross-examination has specifically denied that he used to leave the job in between and attended the work intermittently rather he has claimed that intermit breaks had been deliberately given to his by the respondent in the service record of petitioner so that petitioner did not complete 160 days of work as required for Pangi Tehsil area and also for applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. As such, in absence of any specific and reliable evidence led by respondent, it would be unsafe to hold that respondent had established plea of abandonment.

14. A bare glance on the mandays chart Ex. RW1/B would reveal that petitioner had worked for 51 days in the year 1991, 91 days in 1993, 149 days in 1996, 153 days in 1997, 165 days in 1998, 149 days in 1999, 109 days in 2000, 56 days in 2001, 85 days in 2002, 151 days in 2003 and 105 days in 2004 and thus a total of his service in 1991 to 2004 in 11 years he had worked for 1264 days in his entire service period. Be it noticed that except the year 1998 petitioner had not worked for more than 160 days and as there is no reference from the Labour Commissioner, Shimla on the point of artificial breaks, this court is to confine its findings only with regard to alleged illegal termination. It is evident from mandays chart Ex. RW1/B that in the year 2004 the petitioner had merely worked for 105 days and thus immediately in preceding 12 calendar months from the month of termination of petitioner had not rendered service of 160 days so as to meet requirement of law of having continuous service of one year and thus it was not at all required from respondent to have issued a notice envisaged under Section 25-F of the Act. As such, the respondent is held to have not violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

15. Ld. counsel for petitioner has contended with vehemence that large number of workers who were junior to petitioner had been appointed and these workers have been retained in service and regularized. The grievance of petitioner remains that principle of 'Last come First go' was not followed as the juniors were retained and services of petitioner despite being senior was terminated without any valid reason. Ex. RW1/C is the year-wise mandays of daily waged workers who were junior to the petitioner and had joined in the year 1996 or thereafter. All of these co-workers shown in Ex. RW1/C the year-wise mandays details of workers of Division HPPWD Killar were certainly junior to petitioner who were given sufficient work existing in those years more than 200 days in a year whereas the petitioner had been not given muster roll for the whole month. Ex. RW1/C also established that all the co- workers shown in this document have worked for more than 160 days in most of the years although they were junior to petitioner. Evidently, there is no iota of evidence of respondent establishing that petitioner was called upon to join for service at any time after September, 2004 even at the time when junior persons were reengaged. That being so the respondent had certainly violated the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act as the juniors workers mentioned in para no.10 of the affidavit were retained whereas petitioner was senior from these co-workers having joined service in 1991 was terminated and even thereafter respondent omitted to afford opportunity to petitioner for reemployment for work which also violates the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of Central Bank of India vs. S. Satyam, 1996 (5) SCC 419 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for the applicability of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act, there was no necessity of claimant/petitioner to have worked for 240 days as in case of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

16. Repudiating claim of petitioner, the respondent, on the other hand, has made futile attempt to justify engagement of junior workers and their retention in service on the basis of orders of Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Court of H.P. as 2654 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 reflected in Ex. RW1/C1 to Ex RW1/C4. These judgments/orders have been gone through which revealed that respondent had wrongly terminated the services of those claimant/petitioner and for said reasons they were directed to be reinstated. Thus, plea that persons were directed to be appointed in pursuance to awards/orders Ext. Rw1/C1 to Ex. RW1/C4 were primarily on the basis of court orders would not defeat the claim of the petitioner as status of these person being junior to petitioner does not get negatived. As such, even when petitioner is proved to have not worked for more than 160 days in preceding 8 years which entitled his for regularization of his service per government policy, yet respondent is not absolved from its accountability of provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act and as such it is held that respondent had violated the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. 17. Ld. counsel for petitioner has contended that after petitioner's termination in September, 2004, he had remained unemployed and was not earning anything thereafter as such was entitled for full back wages. Repudiating the arguments of ld. Authorized Representative of petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. for the State has taken this court through cross-examination of the petitioner who has admitted that he had cultivatable land with his and also worked a private labourer. Thus, plea of having remained not gainfully employed gets belied admission of petitioner in cross-examination in which he had maintained that he had been earning from agricultural land as well as he has been working as daily wager privately. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. M. Nagangouda (2007) 10 SCC 765 in which Division Bench comprising of Justice A.R. Lakshmanan and Justice Altamas Kabir had held that 'term gainfully employment would also include self employment wherefrom income is generated. It was income either from employment in an establishment or from self employment merely differentiates the sources from which income is generated, the end use being the same'. Applying the ratio of judgment of 2007 (supra) to this case since the petitioner was earning from his agricultural and manual pursuits, the same were sufficient to maintain his and his family. It is thus held that petitioner was gainfully employed. Be it stated here that Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase's case has held that the Labour Court was not justified in holding that merely because the respondent was receiving agriculture income, he cannot be treated to be engaged in gainful employment. Since the petitioner had income from agriculture pursuits for his livelihood it cannot be stated that petitioner was not gainfully employed and thus would not be entitled full back wages. In view of the forgoing discussion, it is held that the relationship of workman and employer existed between petitioner and respondent and that petitioner was illegally retrenched without compliance of Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Act although remained gainfully employed after his retrenchment. Thus, applying the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court (2007 supra), it may not be erroneous to hold that petitioner was gainfully employed and thus would be not entitled for back wages for the period he was out of job on being terminated by the respondent.

18. Lastly, Ld. Dy. D.A. for State has contended with vehemence that there is inordinate and explained delay which disentitles petitioner relief claimed for by him. On the other hand, ld. Authorized Representative for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014 Lab IC 4266 (SC) and the relevant paras of the judgment are produced below for reference:

"12. Therefore, in our considered view, the observations made by this Court in the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board case (supra) upon which the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana has placed reliance cannot be applied to the fact situation of the case on hand, for the reason that the Labour Court has erroneously rejected the reference without judiciously considering all the relevant2655 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 factors of the case particularly the points of dispute referred to it and answered the 2nd issue regarding the reference being barred by limitation but not on the merits of the case. The said decision has no application to the fact situation and also for the reason the catena of decisions of this Court referred to supra, wherein this Court has categorically held that the provisions of Limitation Act under Article 137 has no application to make reference by the appropriate government to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of existing industrial dispute between workmen and the employer.

13. In the case on hand, no doubt there is a delay in raising the dispute by the appellant; the Labour Court nevertheless has the power to mould the relief accordingly. At the time of adjudication, if the dispute referred to the Labour Court is not adjudicated by it, it does not mean that the dispute ceases to exist. The appropriate government in exercise of its statutory power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act can refer the industrial dispute, between the parties, at any time, to either the jurisdictional Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal as interpreted by this Court in the Avon Services case referred to supra. Therefore, the State Government has rightly exercised its power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act and referred the points of dispute to the Labour Court as the same are in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Avon Services & Sapan Kumar Pandit cases referred to supra.

14. Further, the workman cannot be denied to seek relief only on the ground of delay in raising the dispute as held in the case of S.M. Nilajkar & Ors. v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka[4] it was held by this Court as follows-

"17. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that on account of delay in raising the dispute by the appellants the High Court was justified in denying relief to the appellants. We cannot agree...... In Ratan Chandra Sammanta and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra)1993 AIR SCW 2214, it was held that a casual labourer retrenched by the employer deprives himself of remedy available in law by delay itself, lapse of time results in losing the remedy and the right as well. The delay would certainly be fatal if it has resulted in material evidence relevant to adjudication being lost and rendered not available. However, we do not think that the delay in the case at hand has been so culpable as to disentitle the appellants for any relief....." (Emphasis laid by the Court) In view of the legal principles laid down by this Court in the above judgment, the reference of the industrial dispute made in the case on hand by the State Government to the Labour Court to adjudicate the existing industrial dispute between the parties was made within a reasonable time, considering the circumstances in which the workman was placed, firstly, as there was a criminal case pending against his and secondly, the respondent had assured the workman that he would be reinstated after his acquittal from the criminal case. Moreover, it is reasonable to adjudicate the industrial dispute in spite of the delay in raising and referring the matter, since there is no mention of any loss or unavailability of material evidence due to the delay. Thus, we do not consider the delay in raising the industrial dispute and referring the same to the Labour Court for adjudication as gravely erroneous and it does not debar the workman from claiming rightful relief from his employer.

15. In the case of Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum- Processing Service Society Limited & Anr.[5] this Court has opined that relief cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay, stating that:-

"10. It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the act and that the relief under it2656 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labour court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay in shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/ termination or dismissal. The Court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full back wages....." (Emphasis laid by the Court)

16. Hence, we are of the opinion, having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case that there is no delay or latches on the part of the workman from the date of his acquittal in the criminal case. Thereafter, upon failure of the respondent in adhering to the assurance given to the workman that he would be reinstated after his acquittal from the criminal case, the workman approached the conciliation officer and the State Government to make a reference to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute with regard to the order of dismissal passed by the respondent. Keeping in mind the date of acquittal of the appellant and the date on which he approached the conciliation officer by raising the dispute, since the respondent had not adhered to its assurance, the State Government had rightly referred the dispute for its adjudication. Therefore it cannot be said that there was a delay on the part of the appellant in raising the dispute and getting it referred to the Labour Court by the State Government.

17. Further, the Labour Court on an erroneous assumption of law framed the additional issue regarding the limitation in raising the dispute and its reference by the State Government to the Labour Court. Thus, the Labour Court has ignored the legal principles laid down by this Court in the cases referred to supra. The award passed by the Labour Court was accepted erroneously by both the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court by dismissing the Civil Writ Petition & the Letters Patent Appeal without examining the case in its proper perspective, keeping in view the power of the State Government under Section 10(1)(c) and the object and intendment of the Act. Not adjudicating the existing industrial dispute on merits between the parties referred to it may lead to disruption of industrial peace and harmony, which is the foremost important aspect in Industrial Jurisprudence as the same would affect the public interest at large.

19. Ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has also contended with vehemence that claim petition is barred by limitation on account of delay and laches. It has been pointed that termination of petitioner in this case took place on 2004 and the industrial dispute was raised after several years of retrenchment. Repudiating the argument by ld. counsel, ld. AR for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment reported in 2007 LHLJ 903 Hon'ble High Court of H.P. (Bhatag Ram's case) in which it has been held that delay in raising dispute may be considered by court at the time of granting final relief however in various other judgments even longer delay has been condoned. In Divisional Manager, HPFC & another vs. Garibu Ram, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 1160, delay of more than 10 years was condoned besides Hon'ble High Court has held that principle of Limitation Act is not applicable to the industrial dispute. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajayab Singh vs. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing- cum-Processing Society Limited and Another, (1999) 6 SCC 82 in which it has been held that the principle of Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply to the proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act.

20. Relying upon the aforestated judgment, it has been contended that claim of petitioner cannot be defeated on the point of delay and laches. Repudiating arguments advanced by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub- Division Kota and Mohan Lal [2013 (139) FLR 125], the relevant para of the judgment are produced below for reference:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 25-F and 10- Limitation Act, 1963- Section 5- Industrial dispute- Termination of service-Finding of Lboaur Court that workman had completed 240 days in calander year and her termination was in violation o section 25-F of the I.D.Act- Wrokman worked from 1.11.1984 to 17.2.1986 in all 286 days during employment. her services terminated on 18.2.1986. Industrial dispute raised after 6 years of termination. Admitted delay of 6 years not kept in view by the Labour Court- Judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court flawed and unsustainable. Reinstatement of the workman not the appropriate relief. In lieu of reinstatement compensation of Rs.one lac directed to be paid to the workman by the appellant- employer within six weeks failing which interest @ workman 9% p.a. will be payable. [Paras 21 and 22] Limitation Act, 1963. Section 5- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Section 25-F- Termination of service- Industrial dispute raised after six years- Limitation Act not applicable to reference made under the I.D. Act-Delay in raising industrial disputes definitely an important circumstances which the Labour Court must keep in view before granting relief".

21. Repudiating the arguments by ld. Dy. D.A. for the State, ld. counsel for claimant/petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Tapash Kumar Paul vs. BSNL & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 357 wherein Hon'ble Court held that a Court may pass an order of reinstatement by awarding compensation but the same has to be based on justifiable grounds. In this judgment, it was held that compensation can be granted in a situation where the industry is closed or that employees has superannuated or going to retire shortly and no period is left to his credit or where workman has been rendered in capacitated to discharge duties cannot be reinstated and/or fourthly when he has lost confidence of the management to discharge duties. It was observed that there may be appropriate cases on facts which may justify substituting an order of reinstatement by award of compensation but that has to be supported by some legal and justifiable reasons indicating why the reinstatement should be followed to be substituted by award of compensation. Ld. counsel for the petitioner with the aid of above-said judgment had argued that there are only four situations when a worker may be awarded compensation instead of reinstatement but the judgment has certainly not been correctly appreciated by ld. counsel as this judgment postulates probable four situations which are illustrate in nature where compensation may be awarded instead of reinstatement but that does not mean that except the four grounds, no other ground would be appropriate for awarding compensation. In the case in hand before this court, it has come that petitioner had abandoned the job who did not report for duty for several years and later gave notice requesting for joining of duties but the conditions in para no.5 of judgment (2015 supra) even if not met requirement, cannot be a ground to reinstate the petitioner and it is only compensation which would be appropriate relief. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'be Apex Court titled as Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and Ors. reported in AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 121, Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014(3) Apex Court Judgments 652. I have gone through these judgments and of view that they don't come to rescue the petitioner on point of reinstatement instead of compensation. Ld. Dy. D.A. for State on the other hand has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Vice Chancellor, 2658 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh v. Akhilesh Kumar Khare & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 3473. It has been contended that engagement of claimant/petitioner in this case was not through regular mode of recruitment and applying the ratio of this judgment AIR 2015 SC supra, claim of petitioner for reinstatement can be negated and thus compensation would be sufficient for redressal of grievance of the claimant/petitioner. Similarly, in 2016 (1) Him. L.R. 502 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Chaman Singh relied by ld. AR for petitioner interpretation of Section 137 of Limitation Act was involved which provides that Article 137 of Limitation Act did not apply to industrial disputes. In 2014 (3) Apex Court Judgment 652 (SC) similar view was reiterated which clearly mandates that claimant/petitioner cannot be denied relief sought for merely on the ground of delay and laches. That being so, the law remains as it was that ground of delay and laches, claimant/petitioner cannot be denied relief rather the court has to consider various aspects before moulding relief and the case in hand it would not be erroneous to mention here that the claimant/petitioner can be reasonably indemnified by ordering compensation and not by reinstatement. In so far as judgment of AIR 2015 SC 1373 titled as Mackinon Machenize & Company Ltd. vs. Mackinon Employees Union is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held on closure of unit of company principle of 'Last come First go' was not followed which violated Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act and retrenchment was held illegal entitling petitioner for retrenchment compensation. Since the facts of case of Mackinon Machenize's case are different from case in hand as in former closure of unit of company was involved whereas in case in hand before this court, there is no closure of company rather it is the department of HPPWD which had engaged petitioner without following of the procedure although subject to funds and availability of work but in the case in hand petitioner had abandoned the job who never reported for duty. As such, when there is no closure of any unit by respondent which the petitioner was engaged, judgment of Mackinon Machenize cannot be made applicable.

22. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and case law relied by them, it can be safely concluded that delay in raising industrial dispute is certainly important aspect/circumstance which court has to keep in mind while exercising discretion. In para nos. 20 and 21 of the judgment as referred to in this case reported in 2013 (136) FLR 893 (SC) titled as Assistant Engineer Rajasthan Development Corporation and another vs. Geetam Singh provides that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court or Tribunal has to keep in mind all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment (2013 supra) before that workman had worked for 286 days and had raised industrial dispute in 1992 whereas her services have been terminated in 1986 and she raised industrial dispute after six years. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that though compensation awarded by Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court was too low and liable to be enhanced by the Division Bench but surely reinstatement of the workman in the facts and circumstances is not the appropriate relief and thus Hon'ble Apex Court awarded a lump-sum of Rs.1 lakh along-with interest @ 9% per annum if the respondent failed to make payment of compensation within six weeks from the date of judgment. In the case in hand before this court factors which have weighed are that the petitioner in all remained engaged for about 11 years and actually worked for 1264 days as per mandays chart on record and that the services of petitioner were disengaged in September, 2004 who worked as non skilled worker and had raised industrial dispute by issuance of demand notice after about seven years i.e. demand notice was given on 6.10.2011. Taking into consideration factors mentioned above in pursuance to judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above, petitioner would not be entitled either for reinstatement or for back wages but a lump-sum compensation would be appropriate relief in view of judgment 2013 (139) FLR 25 (SC). The judgments relied upon by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner on the2659 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 matter of delay and laches is more or less settled law that claim of the petitioner could not be solely declined on the ground of delay and laches. Similarly, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in 2014 titled as Raghubir Singh's case also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner as in this judgment also the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the mandate as given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in previous judgment in the year 2013 i.e. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub- Division Kota and Mohan Lal's case. I have gone through these judgments which are not attracted in this present case as this court not declining relief to the petitioner on the ground of limitation rather on the basis of guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court laid down in judgment of 2013.

23. In view of foregoing discussion, a lump-sum compensation of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) would be appropriate relief to which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above. It is further made clear that amount of compensation shall be paid within four months from the date of Award failing which the petitioner would be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from date of Award till its realization. Issues no. 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO. 4

24. On the plea of non-maintainability of the claim petition under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has failed to allege in reply in what manner petition is not maintainable. Thus, vague plea merits rejection outright. Otherwise also, from pleadings and evidence on record, no inference of claim petition being not maintainable could be raised against claimant/petitioner. This issue is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondent.

RELIEF

25. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, the respondent is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) to the petitioner in lieu of the reinstatement in services as well as the other consequential service benefits. Amount of compensation so awarded will be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within four months from today failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay the interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of award till the date of its realization. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

26. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

27. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette.

day of May, 2016.

28. File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room. Announced in the open Court today this 5th

(K. K. Sharma) Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal,

Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA (HP)

Ref. No. : 278/2015

Date of Institution : 13.07.2015

Date of Decision : 05.05.2016

Smt Chhetter Dei w/o Shri Man Singh, r/o Village and Post Office Purthi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. ….Petitioner.

Versus

Executive Engineer, Killar Division, I.&P.H./H.P.P.W.D. Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District ...Respondent. Chamba, H.P.

Reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. O.P. Bhardwaj, Adv.

For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A.

AWARD

The reference given below has been received from the appropriate Government for adjudication:

"Whether the industrial dispute raised by the worker Smt. Chhetter Dei W/O Shri Man Singh, R/O Village and Post Office Purthi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. before the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, I.&P.H./H.P.P.W.D. Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. vide demand notice dated 11.04.2012 regarding her alleged illegal termination of service during October, 2003 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Smt. Chhetter Dei W/O Shri Man Singh, R/O Village and Post Office Purthi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, I.&.P.H./H.P.P.W.D. Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. during October, 2003 without complying 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 aggrieved workman is entitled to from the above employer?"

2. On receipt of reference from appropriate government, notices were issued to the parties in pursuance to which claimant/petitioner has filed statement of claim.

3. Brief facts as enumerated in the present claim petition by the petitioner above named reveal that she had been initially engaged as daily waged beldar on muster roll basis in the year 1996 who continuously worked till October, 2003 with the respondent. Averments made in the petition further revealed that petitioner had worked for 160 days in each calendar year as the criteria prescribed for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil District Chamba and became eligible for continuous service envisaged under statutory provisions of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity). Averments made in the petition revealed that the services of petitioner had interrupted by way of intermittent/artificial breaks given by the respondent/department deliberately and as such breaks are required to2661 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 be counted as continuous services for the purposes of calculation of 160 days so as for the applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. The grievance of petitioner remains that respondent/department had terminated/disengaged petitioner from daily wage service orally without issuing any one month notice in writing indicating the reason for retrenchment besides no retrenchment compensation was paid to petitioner while respondent had illegally terminated her service. It is contended that respondent had not followed the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act while disengaging the services of petitioner. It is stated that petitioner is very poor and no source of income besides after termination of the services of petitioner, she had approached the respondent time and again but of no avail. Grievance of petitioner further remains that when the services of petitioner have been terminated, respondent/department had reengaged number of new workman from time to time and respondent had not followed the principle of 'Last come, First go' as envisaged under Section 25-G of the Act. It is further alleged that respondent/department had continuously retained junior to petitioner and who are still in service with the respondent namely Hukam Chand who appointed in 1997, Jai Dass in 1998, Sher Singh in 2011, Bameshwar Dutt in 2011 and Raj Kumar in 2011. The claimant/petitioner claimed that she had spotless service record who never been charge-sheeted for any act of indiscipline or negligence or her conduct and even at the time of verbal termination, no charge- sheet had been served upon her and the at the same time, no opportunity of hearing had been afforded to him. The petitioner also alleges that she has remained unemployed ever since her illegal termination from month of October, 2004 till the date of institution of present claim petition who had been nowhere gainfully employed and was thus entitled for full back wages. Accordingly alleging respondent to have committed violation of statutory provision of Section 25-F, Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for setting aside oral order of termination/retrenchment by the respondent in the month of October, 2003. She further prayed for reinstatement in service w.e.f. month of October, 2003 along- with back wages, seniority including continuity in service as petitioner has remained unemployed since the date of her illegal termination. The petitioner has also prayed that period of intermittent/fictional breaks given time and again during entire service of petitioner between 1996 to October, 2003 be counted 160 days continuous service and regularization of the service of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2004 having completed 8 years of service and per the policy of HP Govt. in pursuance to law settled by Hon'ble High Court of H.P. and to any other relief petitioner is entitled.

4. The respondent contested claim petition, filed reply inter-alia taken preliminary objections of maintainability, claim petition being bad on account of delay and laches. On merits denied that petitioner had worked for more than 160 days in each calendar year rather clarified by stating that petitioner was engaged as daily waged beldar in 2000 who remained engaged till 2003 but had worked intermittently as petitioner used to come and attend the work at her own sweet will and convenience. Relying upon the mandays chart, it has been categorically pleaded by the respondent that petitioner had not completed 160 days in each calendar year as required for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil. Allegations of fictional breaks given by respondent to the petitioner have been denied. In so far as engagement of persons junior to petitioner mentioned in para no. 10 of the claim petition were appointed as per order of Labour Court and no other juniors to the petitioner had been retained in service by the respondent. On the plea of termination of service of petitioner, respondent specifically alleges that petitioner had left the job at her own will therefore serving of notice or pay in lieu thereof was not required. Reiterating its stand respondent has maintained that petitioner had left the work of her own sweet will and the persons mentioned in para no.10 are stated to have engaged as per direction of the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal Dharamshala and respondent had not violated the principle of 'Last come, First go'. It is also contended that if petitioner had been terminated in 2003 she would have definitely raised industrial dispute immediately and that after seven years petitioner is stated to be agitating the matter which is bad on account of delay and laches. It 2662 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 is also contended that since the services of petitioner had not been terminated by the respondent, question of issuance of notice or wages in lieu thereof did not arise and at the same time, there was no necessity for charge-sheet or issuing any notice of petitioner after her termination. It is contended that petitioner was agriculturist and gainfully employed and was thus not entitled for back wages.

5. The petitioner filed rejoinder, reiterated her stand as maintained in the claim petition. Further asserted that provisions of Limitation Act did not eclipse the claim of petitioner in totality besides allegation of violation of principle of 'Last come First go' was specifically denied.

6. In order to prove her case, petitioner had examined herself as PW1 tendered/ proved her affidavit Ex. PW1/A under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, copy of demand notice Ex. PW1/B, copy of reply dated 15.06.2012 Ex. PW1/C, copy of order dated 30.5.2015 Ex. PW1/D, Ex. PW1/E copy of order dated 28.2.2011 and Ex. PW1/F mandays cahrt and closed evidence. On the other hand, repudiating the evidence led by the petitioner, respondent examined RW1 Shri Bal Krishan Kapil, the then Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Killar as RW1 tendered/ proved mandays chart of petitioner Ex. RW1/B, Ex. RW1/C copy of mandays chart of co- workers, Ex. RW1/C1 to Ex. RW1/C5 copy of orders/awards and closed the evidence.

7. I have heard the ld. counsel of petitioner and ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent, gone through records of the case carefully relevant for disposed of this case.

8. From the contentions raised, following issues were framed on 27.11.2015 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated 11.04.2012 qua her termination of service during October, 2003 by respondent suffers from the vice of delay and laches as alleged? If so, its effect? …OPP.

2. Whether termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent during October, 2003 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged? … OPP.

3. If issue no. 2 is proved in affirmative, to what service benefits the petitioner is …OPP.

entitled to?

4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged?

…OPR.

Relief.

9. For the reasons detailed here under, my findings on the above issues are as follows:—

Issue No.1 : Yes

Issue No.2 : Yes

Issue No.3 : Discussed

Issue No.4 : No

Relief. : Petition is partly allowed awarding compensation Rs.45,000/- per operative part of award.

ISSUES NO.1 TO 3

10. All these issues have been taken up together for discussion being interconnected which can be disposed of simultaneously without repetition of evidence.

11. Relationship of petitioner having been engaged as daily waged beldar by respondent on muster roll basis in the year 2000 continuously worked till October, 2003 with the respondent is not in dispute. Admittedly, petitioner was engaged without any written order or settlement of terms and conditions by the respondent. It is equally not in dispute that no written order was passed while terminating service of the petitioner as claim of respondent remains that it had not retrenched petitioner from service who had abandoned the job of her own and used to work intermittently as per her own wish and convenience. Admittedly, the reference of appropriate govt. does not relate to plea of fictional breaks but only with regard to petitioner's termination from service. In the backdrop of foregoing admitted facts on record, claim of petitioner requires to be adjudicated with a view to determine if petitioner is entitled for relief of reinstatement and back wages along-with seniority and past service benefits and compensation as claimed by him.

12. Stepping into witness box as PW1 has sworn in affidavit Ex. PW1/A reiterating and reaffirming her pleadings as stipulated in claim petition. In her affidavit she has claimed to have worked with the respondent/department for more than 160 days in Pangi Sub Division Chamba District and remained engaged from 2000 to October, 2003. She has also stated on oath that no notice under Section 25- F of the Act was given by the respondent before terminating her service and at the same time no compensation in lieu thereof notice period was paid to her and thus her termination was illegal and void entitling petitioner benefit of reinstatement of service with full back wages and all the other consequential service benefits. The petitioner has further alleged on oath that respondent/department after terminating her services in October, 2003 by oral order had engaged several co-workers who were junior to petitioner were retained in service. Not only this, the persons who were junior to petitioner are stated to have been regularized in service and thus respondent had not followed the mandate of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act which was obligatory on its part. The case of petitioner also remains that she had served respondent with due diligence and had spotless service record as respondent/department had never called any explanation or raised charge-sheet against her but even while retrenching petitioner from service, no notice was given. The petitioner has also explained reason for not approaching the authorities under Labour Act and thereafter before this Tribunal, as there existed no road between Chamba town to Pangi Tehsil till 2012 and petitioner had moved before the Labour Officer raising demand notice consequent upon which a failure report was submitted and as the Labour Commissioner did not make reference for industrial dispute raised by petitioner, the petitioner had moved before the Hon'ble High Court by filing CWP where direction was passed for making reference to the Labour Court due to which delay had occurred and same was satisfactorily explained.

13. In so far as plea of abandonment raised by respondent is concerned, the same merits rejection in view of the fact that respondent had failed to produce any record by which it could be established that whenever petitioner absented from her duty as also reflected in mandays chart Ex. RW1/B any notice or letter was ever issued. On this point respondent as RW1 has specifically admitted that whenever petitioner abandoned the job, no notice had been issued. RW1 specifically admitted that no departmental inquiry was initiated against petitioner even after October, 2003. No reason whatsoever has been assigned for such any action or omission on the part of respondent in not initiating any departmental proceedings or making 2664 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 correspondence calling upon the petitioner to join service. This prima facie belies the stand taken by the respondent as abandonment has to be proved like any other fact in issue. The petitioner, on the other hand, as PW1 in cross-examination has specifically denied that she used to leave the job in between and attended the work intermittently rather she has claimed that intermit breaks had been deliberately given to her by the respondent in the service record of petitioner so that petitioner did not complete 160 days of work as required for Pangi Tehsil area and also for applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. As such, in absence of any specific and reliable evidence led by respondent, it would be unsafe to hold that respondent had established plea of abandonment.

14. A bare glance on the mandays chart Ex. RW1/B would reveal that petitioner had worked for 41 days in the year 2000, 113 days in 2002 and 119 days in 2003 and thus a total of her service in 2000 to 2003 in 3 years she had worked for 273 days in her entire service period. Be it noticed that petitioner had not worked for more than 160 days and as there is no reference from the Labour Commissioner, Shimla on the point of artificial breaks, this court is to confine its findings only with regard to alleged illegal termination. It is evident from mandays chart Ex. RW1/B that in the year 2003 the petitioner had merely worked for 119 days and thus immediately in preceding 12 calendar months from the month of termination of petitioner had not rendered service of 160 days so as to meet requirement of law of having continuous service of one year and thus it was not at all required from respondent to have issued a notice envisaged under Section 25-F of the Act. As such, the respondent is held to have not violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

15. Ld. counsel for petitioner has contended with vehemence that large number of workers who were junior to petitioner had been appointed and these workers have been retained in service and regularized. The grievance of petitioner remains that principle of 'Last come First go' was not followed as the juniors were retained and services of petitioner despite being senior was terminated without any valid reason. Ex. RW1/C is the year-wise mandays of daily waged workers who were junior to the petitioner and had joined in the year 2000 or thereafter. All of these co-workers shown in Ex. RW1/C the year-wise mandays details of workers of Division HPPWD Killar were certainly junior to petitioner who were given sufficient work existing in those years more than 200 days in a year whereas the petitioner had been not given muster roll for the whole month. Ex. RW1/C also established that all the co- workers shown in this document have worked for more than 160 days in most of the years although they were junior to petitioner. Evidently, there is no iota of evidence of respondent establishing that petitioner was called upon to join for service at any time after October, 2003 even at the time when junior persons were reengaged. That being so the respondent had certainly violated the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act as the juniors workers mentioned in para no.10 of the affidavit were retained whereas petitioner was senior from these co-workers having joined service in 2000 was terminated and even thereafter respondent omitted to afford opportunity to petitioner for reemployment for work which also violates the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of Central Bank of India vs. S. Satyam, 1996 (5) SCC 419 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for the applicability of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act, there was no necessity of claimant/petitioner to have worked for 240 days as in case of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

16. Repudiating claim of petitioner, the respondent, on the other hand, has made futile attempt to justify engagement of junior workers and their retention in service on the basis of orders of Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Court of H.P. as reflected in Ex. RW1/C1 to Ex RW1/C5. These judgments/orders have been gone through which revealed that respondent had wrongly terminated the services of those claimant/petitioner2665 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 and for said reasons they were directed to be reinstated. Thus, plea that persons were directed to be appointed in pursuance to awards/orders Ext. Rw1/C1 to Ex. RW1/C5 were primarily on the basis of court orders would not defeat the claim of the petitioner as status of these person being junior to petitioner does not get negatived. As such, even when petitioner is proved to have not worked for more than 160 days in preceding 8 years which entitled her for regularization of her service per government policy, yet respondent is not absolved from its accountability of provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act and as such it is held that respondent had violated the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. 17. Ld. counsel for petitioner has contended that after petitioner's termination in October, 2003, she had remained unemployed and was not earning anything thereafter as such was entitled for full back wages. Repudiating the arguments of ld. Authorized Representative of petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. for the State has taken this court through cross-examination of the petitioner who has admitted that she had cultivatable land with her and also worked a private labourer. Thus, plea of having remained not gainfully employed gets belied admission of petitioner in cross-examination in which she had maintained that she had been earning from agricultural land as well as she has been working as daily wager privately. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. M. Nagangouda (2007) 10 SCC 765 in which Division Bench comprising of Justice A.R. Lakshmanan and Justice Altamas Kabir had held that 'term gainfully employment would also include self employment wherefrom income is generated. It was income either from employment in an establishment or from self employment merely differentiates the sources from which income is generated, the end use being the same'. Applying the ratio of judgment of 2007 (supra) to this case since the petitioner was earning from her agricultural and manual pursuits, the same were sufficient to maintain her and her family. It is thus held that petitioner was gainfully employed. Be it stated here that Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase's case has held that the Labour Court was not justified in holding that merely because the respondent was receiving agriculture income, she cannot be treated to be engaged in gainful employment. Since the petitioner had income from agriculture pursuits for her livelihood it cannot be stated that petitioner was not gainfully employed and thus would not be entitled full back wages. In view of the forgoing discussion, it is held that the relationship of workman and employer existed between petitioner and respondent and that petitioner was illegally retrenched without compliance of Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Act although remained gainfully employed after her retrenchment. Thus, applying the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court (2007 supra), it may not be erroneous to hold that petitioner was gainfully employed and thus would be not entitled for back wages for the period she was out of job on being terminated by the respondent.

18. Lastly, Ld. Dy. D.A. for State has contended with vehemence that there is inordinate and explained delay which disentitles petitieonr relief claimed for by him. On the other hand, ld. Authorized Representative for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014 Lab IC 4266 (SC) and the relevant paras of the judgment are produced below for reference:

"12. Therefore, in our considered view, the observations made by this Court in the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board case (supra) upon which the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana has placed reliance cannot be applied to the fact situation of the case on hand, for the reason that the Labour Court has erroneously rejected the reference without judiciously considering all the relevant factors of the case particularly the points of dispute referred to it and answered the 2nd issue regarding the reference being barred by limitation but not on the merits of the2666 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 case. The said decision has no application to the fact situation and also for the reason the catena of decisions of this Court referred to supra, wherein this Court has categorically held that the provisions of Limitation Act under Article 137 has no application to make reference by the appropriate government to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of existing industrial dispute between workmen and the employer.

13. In the case on hand, no doubt there is a delay in raising the dispute by the appellant; the Labour Court nevertheless has the power to mould the relief accordingly. At the time of adjudication, if the dispute referred to the Labour Court is not adjudicated by it, it does not mean that the dispute ceases to exist. The appropriate government in exercise of its statutory power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act can refer the industrial dispute, between the parties, at any time, to either the jurisdictional Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal as interpreted by this Court in the Avon Services case referred to supra. Therefore, the State Government has rightly exercised its power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act and referred the points of dispute to the Labour Court as the same are in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Avon Services & Sapan Kumar Pandit cases referred to supra.

14. Further, the workman cannot be denied to seek relief only on the ground of delay in raising the dispute as held in the case of S.M. Nilajkar & Ors. v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka[4] it was held by this Court as follows-

"17. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that on account of delay in raising the dispute by the appellants the High Court was justified in denying relief to the appellants. We cannot agree...... In Ratan Chandra Sammanta and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra)1993 AIR SCW 2214, it was held that a casual labourer retrenched by the employer deprives himself of remedy available in law by delay itself, lapse of time results in losing the remedy and the right as well. The delay would certainly be fatal if it has resulted in material evidence relevant to adjudication being lost and rendered not available. However, we do not think that the delay in the case at hand has been so culpable as to disentitle the appellants for any relief....." (Emphasis laid by the Court) In view of the legal principles laid down by this Court in the above judgment, the reference of the industrial dispute made in the case on hand by the State Government to the Labour Court to adjudicate the existing industrial dispute between the parties was made within a reasonable time, considering the circumstances in which the workman was placed, firstly, as there was a criminal case pending against her and secondly, the respondent had assured the workman that she would be reinstated after her acquittal from the criminal case. Moreover, it is reasonable to adjudicate the industrial dispute in spite of the delay in raising and referring the matter, since there is no mention of any loss or unavailability of material evidence due to the delay. Thus, we do not consider the delay in raising the industrial dispute and referring the same to the Labour Court for adjudication as gravely erroneous and it does not debar the workman from claiming rightful relief from her employer.

15. In the case of Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum- Processing Service Society Limited & Anr.[5] this Court has opined that relief cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay, stating that:-

"10. It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real2667 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labour court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay in shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date she raised the demand regarding her illegal retrenchment/ termination or dismissal. The Court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full back wages....." (Emphasis laid by the Court)

16. Hence, we are of the opinion, having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case that there is no delay or latches on the part of the workman from the date of her acquittal in the criminal case. Thereafter, upon failure of the respondent in adhering to the assurance given to the workman that she would be reinstated after her acquittal from the criminal case, the workman approached the conciliation officer and the State Government to make a reference to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute with regard to the order of dismissal passed by the respondent. Keeping in mind the date of acquittal of the appellant and the date on which she approached the conciliation officer by raising the dispute, since the respondent had not adhered to its assurance, the State Government had rightly referred the dispute for its adjudication. Therefore it cannot be said that there was a delay on the part of the appellant in raising the dispute and getting it referred to the Labour Court by the State Government.

17. Further, the Labour Court on an erroneous assumption of law framed the additional issue regarding the limitation in raising the dispute and its reference by the State Government to the Labour Court. Thus, the Labour Court has ignored the legal principles laid down by this Court in the cases referred to supra. The award passed by the Labour Court was accepted erroneously by both the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court by dismissing the Civil Writ Petition & the Letters Patent Appeal without examining the case in its proper perspective, keeping in view the power of the State Government under Section 10(1)(c) and the object and intendment of the Act. Not adjudicating the existing industrial dispute on merits between the parties referred to it may lead to disruption of industrial peace and harmony, which is the foremost important aspect in Industrial Jurisprudence as the same would affect the public interest at large.

19. Ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has also contended with vehemence that claim petition is barred by limitation on account of delay and laches. It has been pointed that termination of petitioner in this case took place on 2003 and the industrial dispute was raised after several years of retrenchment. Repudiating the argument by ld. counsel, ld. AR for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment reported in 2007 LHLJ 903 Hon'ble High Court of H.P. (Bhatag Ram's case) in which it has been held that delay in raising dispute may be considered by court at the time of granting final relief however in various other judgments even longer delay has been condoned. In Divisional Manager, HPFC & another vs. Garibu Ram, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 1160, delay of more than 10 years was condoned besides Hon'ble High Court has held that principle of Limitation Act is not applicable to the industrial dispute. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajayab Singh vs. Sirhind Co- operative Marketing- cum-Processing Society Limited and Another, (1999) 6 SCC 82 in which it has been held that the principle of Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply to the proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act.

20. Relying upon the aforestated judgment, it has been contended that claim of petitioner cannot be defeated on the point of delay and laches. Repudiating arguments advanced by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. has placed reliance upon 2668 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub- Division Kota and Mohan Lal [2013 (139) FLR 125], the relevant para of the judgment are produced below for reference:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 25-F and 10-Limitation Act, 1963- Section 5- Industrial dispute- Termination of service-Finding of Lboaur Court that workman had completed 240 days in calander year and her termination was in violation o section 25-F of the I.D.Act- Wrokman worked from 1.11.1984 to 17.2.1986 in all 286 days during employment. her services terminated on 18.2.1986. Industrial dispute raised after 6 years of termination. Admitted delay of 6 years not kept in view by the Labour Court- Judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court flawed and unsustainable. Reinstatement of the workman not the appropriate relief. In lieu of reinstatement compensation of Rs.one lac directed to be paid to the workman by the appellant- employer within six weeks failing which interest @ workman 9% p.a. will be payable. [Paras 21 and 22] Limitation Act, 1963. Section 5- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Section 25-F- Termination of service- Industrial dispute raised after six years- Limitation Act not applicable to reference made under the I.D. Act-Delay in raising industrial disputes definitely an important circumstances which the Labour Court must keep in view before granting relief".

21. Repudiating the arguments by ld. Dy. D.A. for the State, ld. counsel for claimant/petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Tapash Kumar Paul vs. BSNL & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 357 wherein Hon'ble Court held that a Court may pass an order of reinstatement by awarding compensation but the same has to be based on justifiable grounds. In this judgment, it was held that compensation can be granted in a situation where the industry is closed or that employees has superannuated or going to retire shortly and no period is left to his credit or where workman has been rendered in capacitated to discharge duties cannot be reinstated and/or fourthly when he has lost confidence of the management to discharge duties. It was observed that there may be appropriate cases on facts which may justify substituting an order of reinstatement by award of compensation but that has to be supported by some legal and justifiable reasons indicating why the reinstatement should be followed to be substituted by award of compensation. Ld. counsel for the petitioner with the aid of above-said judgment had argued that there are only four situations when a worker may be awarded compensation instead of reinstatement but the judgment has certainly not been correctly appreciated by ld. counsel as this judgment postulates probable four situations which are illustrate in nature where compensation may be awarded instead of reinstatement but that does not mean that except the four grounds, no other ground would be appropriate for awarding compensation. In the case in hand before this court, it has come that petitioner had abandoned the job who did not report for duty for several years and later gave notice requesting for joining of duties but the conditions in para no.5 of judgment (2015 supra) even if not met requirement, cannot be a ground to reinstate the petitioner and it is only compensation which would be appropriate relief. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'be Apex Court titled as Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and Ors. reported in AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 121, Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014(3) Apex Court Judgments 652. I have gone through these judgments and of view that they don't come to rescue the petitioner on point of reinstatement instead of compensation. Ld. Dy. D.A. for State on the other hand has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh v. Akhilesh Kumar Khare & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 3473. It has been contended that engagement of claimant/petitioner in this case was not through regular mode of recruitment and applying the ratio of this judgment AIR2669 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 2015 SC supra, claim of petitioner for reinstatement can be negated and thus compensation would be sufficient for redressal of grievance of the claimant/petitioner. Similarly, in 2016 (1) Him. L.R. 502 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Chaman Singh relied by ld. AR for petitioner interpretation of Section 137 of Limitation Act was involved which provides that Article 137 of Limitation Act did not apply to industrial disputes. In 2014 (3) Apex Court Judgment 652 (SC) similar view was reiterated which clearly mandates that claimant/petitioner cannot be denied relief sought for merely on the ground of delay and laches. That being so, the law remains as it was that ground of delay and laches, claimant/petitioner cannot be denied relief rather the court has to consider various aspects before moulding relief and the case in hand it would not be erroneous to mention here that the claimant/petitioner can be reasonably indemnified by ordering compensation and not by reinstatement. In so far as judgment of AIR 2015 SC 1373 titled as Mackinon Machenize & Company Ltd. vs. Mackinon Employees Union is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held on closure of unit of company principle of 'Last come First go' was not followed which violated Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act and retrenchment was held illegal entitling petitioner for retrenchment compensation. Since the facts of case of Mackinon Machenize's case are different from case in hand as in former closure of unit of company was involved whereas in case in hand before this court, there is no closure of company rather it is the department of HPPWD which had engaged petitioner without following of the procedure although subject to funds and availability of work but in the case in hand petitioner had abandoned the job who never reported for duty. As such, when there is no closure of any unit by respondent which the petitioner was engaged, judgment of Mackinon Machenize cannot be made applicable.

22. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and case law relied by them, it can be safely concluded that delay in raising industrial dispute is certainly important aspect/circumstance which court has to keep in mind while exercising discretion. In para nos. 20 and 21 of the judgment as referred to in this case reported in 2013 (136) FLR 893 (SC) titled as Assistant Engineer Rajasthan Development Corporation and another vs. Geetam Singh provides that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court or Tribunal has to keep in mind all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment (2013 supra) before that workman had worked for 286 days and had raised industrial dispute in 1992 whereas her services have been terminated in 1986 and she raised industrial dispute after six years. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that though compensation awarded by Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court was too low and liable to be enhanced by the Division Bench but surely reinstatement of the workman in the facts and circumstances is not the appropriate relief and thus Hon'ble Apex Court awarded a lump-sum of Rs.1 lakh along-with interest @ 9% per annum if the respondent failed to make payment of compensation within six weeks from the date of judgment. In the case in hand before this court factors which have weighed are that the petitioner in all remained engaged for about 3 years and actually worked for 273 days as per mandays chart on record and that the services of petitioner were disengaged in October, 2003 who worked as non skilled worker and had raised industrial dispute by issuance of demand notice after about nine years i.e. demand notice was given on 11.4.2012. Taking into consideration factors mentioned above in pursuance to judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above, petitioner would not be entitled either for reinstatement or for back wages but a lump-sum compensation would be appropriate relief in view of judgment 2013 (139) FLR 25 (SC). The judgments relied upon by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner on the matter of delay and laches is more or less settled law that claim of the petitioner could not be solely declined on the ground of delay and laches. Similarly, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in 2014 titled as Raghubir Singh's case also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner as in 2670 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 this judgment also the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the mandate as given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in previous judgment in the year 2013 i.e. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division Kota and Mohan Lal's case. I have gone through these judgments which are not attracted in this present case as this court not declining relief to the petitioner on the ground of limitation rather on the basis of guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court laid down in judgment of 2013.

23. In view of foregoing discussion, a lump-sum compensation of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand only) would be appropriate relief to which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above. It is further made clear that amount of compensation shall be paid within four months from the date of Award failing which the petitioner would be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from date of Award till its realization. Issues no. 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO. 4

24. On the plea of non-maintainability of the claim petition under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has failed to allege in reply in what manner petition is not maintainable. Thus, vague plea merits rejection outright. Otherwise also, from pleadings and evidence on record, no inference of claim petition being not maintainable could be raised against claimant/petitioner. This issue is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondent.

RELIEF

25. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, the respondent is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand only) to the petitioner in lieu of the reinstatement in services as well as the other consequential service benefits. Amount of compensation so awarded will be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within four months from today failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay the interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of award till the date of its realization. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

26. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

27. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette.

day of May, 2016.

28. File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room. Announced in the open Court today this 5th

(K. K. Sharma) Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal,

Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA (HP)

Ref. No. : 326/2015

Date of Institution : 21.07.2015

Date of Decision : 05.05.2016

Shri Bhuri Singh s/o Shri Jyoti Parkash, r/o Village and Post Office Purthi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. ….Petitioner.

Versus

Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P.

....Respondent.

Reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. O.P. Bhardwaj, Adv.

For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A.

AWARD

The reference given below has been received from the appropriate Government for adjudication:

"Whether the industrial dispute raised by the worker Shri Bhuri Singh S/O Shri Jyoti Parkash, Village and Post Office Purthi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P.before the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division, Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. vide demand notice-nil-receive on 08.05.2012 regarding his alleged illegal termination of service during September, 2005 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Shri Bhuri Singh S/O Shri Jyoti Parkash, Village and Post Office Purthi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division, Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. during September, 2005 without complying 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 aggrieved workman is entitled to from the above employer?"

2. On receipt of reference from appropriate government, notices were issued to the parties in pursuance to which claimant/petitioner has filed statement of claim.

3. Brief facts as enumerated in the present claim petition by the petitioner above named reveal that he had been initially engaged as daily waged beldar on muster roll basis in the year 2000 who continuously worked till October, 2005 with the respondent. Averments made in the petition further revealed that petitioner had worked for 160 days in each calendar year as the criteria prescribed for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil District Chamba and became eligible for continuous service envisaged under statutory provisions of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity). Averments made in the petition revealed that the services of petitioner had interrupted by way of intermittent/artificial breaks given by the respondent/department deliberately and as such breaks are required to be counted as continuous services for the purposes of calculation of 160 days so as for the applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. The grievance of petitioner remains that respondent/department had terminated/disengaged petitioner from daily wage service orally 2672 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 without issuing any one month notice in writing indicating the reason for retrenchment besides no retrenchment compensation was paid to petitioner while respondent had illegally terminated his service. It is contended that respondent had not followed the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act while disengaging the services of petitioner. It is stated that petitioner is very poor and no source of income besides after termination of the services of petitioner, he had approached the respondent time and again but of no avail. Grievance of petitioner further remains that when the services of petitioner have been terminated, respondent/department had reengaged number of new workman from time to time and respondent had not followed the principle of 'Last come, First go' as envisaged under Section 25-G of the Act. It is further alleged that respondent/department had continuously retained junior to petitioner and who are still in service with the respondent namely Raj Kumar who appointed in 1996, Hukam Chand in 1997, Suraj Ram in 1997, Chunku Ram in 2000, Budhi Ram in 2003, Sher Singh in 2011 and Dev Raj in 2004. The claimant/petitioner claimed that he had spotless service record who never been charge-sheeted for any act of indiscipline or negligence or his conduct and even at the time of verbal termination, no charge-sheet had been served upon his and the at the same time, no opportunity of hearing had been afforded to him. The petitioner also alleges that he has remained unemployed ever since his illegal termination from month of October, 2005 till the date of institution of present claim petition who had been nowhere gainfully employed and was thus entitled for full back wages. Accordingly alleging respondent to have committed violation of statutory provision of Section 25-F, Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for setting aside oral order of termination/retrenchment by the respondent in the month of October, 2005. He further prayed for reinstatement in service w.e.f. month of October, 2005 along-with back wages, seniority including continuity in service as petitioner has remained unemployed since the date of his illegal termination. The petitioner has also prayed that period of intermittent/fictional breaks given time and again during entire service of petitioner between 2000 to October, 2005 be counted 160 days continuous service and regularization of the service of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2009 having completed 8 years of service and per the policy of HP Govt. in pursuance to law settled by Hon'ble High Court of H.P. and to any other relief petitioner is entitled.

4. The respondent contested claim petition, filed reply inter-alia taken preliminary objections of maintainability, claim petition being bad on account of delay and laches. On merits denied that petitioner had worked for more than 160 days in each calendar year rather clarified by stating that petitioner was engaged as daily waged beldar in 2000 who remained engaged till 2005 but had worked intermittently as petitioner used to come and attend the work at his own sweet will and convenience. Relying upon the mandays chart, it has been categorically pleaded by the respondent that petitioner had not completed 160 days in each calendar year as required for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil. Allegations of fictional breaks given by respondent to the petitioner have been denied. In so far as engagement of persons junior to petitioner mentioned in para no. 10 of the claim petition were appointed as per order of Labour Court and no other juniors to the petitioner had been retained in service by the respondent. On the plea of termination of service of petitioner, respondent specifically alleges that petitioner had left the job at his own will therefore serving of notice or pay in lieu thereof was not required. Reiterating its stand respondent has maintained that petitioner had left the work of his own sweet will and the persons mentioned in para no.10 are stated to have engaged as per direction of the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal Dharamshala and respondent had not violated the principle of 'Last come, First go'. It is also contended that if petitioner had been terminated in 2005 he would have definitely raised industrial dispute immediately and that after seven years petitioner is stated to be agitating the matter which is bad on account of delay and laches. It is also contended that since the services of petitioner had not been terminated by the respondent, question of issuance of notice or wages in lieu thereof did not arise and at2673 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 the same time, there was no necessity for charge-sheet or issuing any notice of petitioner after his termination. It is contended that petitioner was agriculturist and gainfully employed and was thus not entitled for back wages.

5. The petitioner filed rejoinder, reiterated his stand as maintained in the claim petition. Further asserted that provisions of Limitation Act did not eclipse the claim of petitioner in totality besides allegation of violation of principle of 'Last come First go' was specifically denied.

6. In order to prove his case, petitioner had examined himself as PW1 tendered/proved his affidavit Ex. PW1/A under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, copy of demand notice dated Ex. PW1/B, copy of order dated 27.5.2015 Ex. PW1/C and closed evidence. On the other hand, repudiating the evidence led by the petitioner, respondent examined RW1 Shri Bal Krishan Kapil, the then Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Killar as RW1 tendered/proved mandays chart of petitioner Ex. RW1/B, Ex. RW1/C copy of mandays chart of co-workers, Ex. RW1/C1 to Ex. RW1/C4 copy of orders/awards and closed the evidence.

7. I have heard the ld. counsel of petitioner and ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent, gone through records of the case carefully relevant for disposed of this case.

8. From the contentions raised, following issues were framed on 27.11.2015 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated nil qua his termination of service during September, 2005 by respondent suffers from the vice of delay and laches as alleged? If so, its effect? …OPP.

2. Whether termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent during September, 2005 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged? … OPP.

3. If issue no. 2 is proved in affirmative, to what service benefits the petitioner is …OPP.

entitled to?

4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? …OPR.

Relief.

9. For the reasons detailed here under, my findings on the above issues are as follows:—

Issue No.1 : Yes

Issue No.2 : Yes

Issue No.3 : Discussed

Issue No.4 : No

Relief. : Petition is partly allowed awarding compensation Rs.50,000/- per operative part of award.

ISSUES NO. 1 TO 3

10. All these issues have been taken up together for discussion being interconnected which can be disposed of simultaneously without repetition of evidence.

11. Relationship of petitioner having been engaged as daily waged beldar by respondent on muster roll basis in the year 2000 continuously worked till October, 2005 with the respondent is not in dispute. Admittedly, petitioner was engaged without any written order or settlement of terms and conditions by the respondent. It is equally not in dispute that no written order was passed while terminating service of the petitioner as claim of respondent remains that it had not retrenched petitioner from service who had abandoned the job of his own and used to work intermittently as per his own wish and convenience. Admittedly, the reference of appropriate govt. does not relate to plea of fictional breaks but only with regard to petitioner's termination from service. In the backdrop of foregoing admitted facts on record, claim of petitioner requires to be adjudicated with a view to determine if petitioner is entitled for relief of reinstatement and back wages along-with seniority and past service benefits and compensation as claimed by him.

12. Stepping into witness box as PW1 has sworn in affidavit Ex. PW1/A reiterating and reaffirming his pleadings as stipulated in claim petition. In his affidavit he has claimed to have worked with the respondent/department for more than 160 days in Pangi Sub Division Chamba District and remained engaged from 2002 to October, 2005. He has also stated on oath that no notice under Section 25- F of the Act was given by the respondent before terminating his service and at the same time no compensation in lieu thereof notice period was paid to his and thus his termination was illegal and void entitling petitioner benefit of reinstatement of service with full back wages and all the other consequential service benefits. The petitioner has further alleged on oath that respondent/department after terminating his services in October, 2005 by oral order had engaged several co-workers who were junior to petitioner were retained in service. Not only this, the persons who were junior to petitioner are stated to have been regularized in service and thus respondent had not followed the mandate of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act which was obligatory on its part. The case of petitioner also remains that he had served respondent with due diligence and had spotless service record as respondent/department had never called any explanation or raised charge-sheet against his but even while retrenching petitioner from service, no notice was given. The petitioner has also explained reason for not approaching the authorities under Labour Act and thereafter before this Tribunal, as there existed no road between Chamba town to Pangi Tehsil till 2011 and petitioner had moved before the Labour Officer raising demand notice consequent upon which a failure report was submitted and as the Labour Commissioner did not make reference for industrial dispute raised by petitioner, the petitioner had moved before the Hon'ble High Court by filing CWP where direction was passed for making reference to the Labour Court due to which delay had occurred and same was satisfactorily explained.

13. In so far as plea of abandonment raised by respondent is concerned, the same merits rejection in view of the fact that respondent had failed to produce any record by which it could be established that whenever petitioner absented from his duty as also reflected in mandays chart Ex. RW1/B any notice or letter was ever issued. On this point respondent as RW1 has specifically admitted that whenever petitioner abandoned the job, no notice had been issued. RW1 specifically admitted that no departmental inquiry was initiated against petitioner even after October, 2005. No reason whatsoever has been assigned for such any action or omission on the part of respondent in not initiating any departmental proceedings or making2675 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 correspondence calling upon the petitioner to join service. This prima facie belies the stand taken by the respondent as abandonment has to be proved like any other fact in issue. The petitioner, on the other hand, as PW1 in cross-examination has specifically denied that he used to leave the job in between and attended the work intermittently rather he has claimed that intermit breaks had been deliberately given to his by the respondent in the service record of petitioner so that petitioner did not complete 160 days of work as required for Pangi Tehsil area and also for applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. As such, in absence of any specific and reliable evidence led by respondent, it would be unsafe to hold that respondent had established plea of abandonment.

14. A bare glance on the mandays chart Ex. RW1/B would reveal that petitioner had worked for 118 days in the year 2002, 117 days in 2003, 127 days in 2004 and 28 days in 2005 and thus a total of his service in 2002 to 2005 in 4 years he had worked for 390 days in his entire service period. Be it noticed that petitioner had not worked for more than 160 days and as there is no reference from the Labour Commissioner, Shimla on the point of artificial breaks, this court is to confine its findings only with regard to alleged illegal termination. It is evident from mandays chart Ex. RW1/B that in the year 2002 the petitioner had merely worked for 28 days and thus immediately in preceding 12 calendar months from the month of termination of petitioner had not rendered service of 160 days so as to meet requirement of law of having continuous service of one year and thus it was not at all required from respondent to have issued a notice envisaged under Section 25-F of the Act. As such, the respondent is held to have not violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

15. Ld. counsel for petitioner has contended with vehemence that large number of workers who were junior to petitioner had been appointed and these workers have been retained in service and regularized. The grievance of petitioner remains that principle of 'Last come First go' was not followed as the juniors were retained and services of petitioner despite being senior was terminated without any valid reason. Ex. RW1/C is the year-wise mandays of daily waged workers who were junior to the petitioner and had joined in the year 1996 or thereafter. All of these co-workers shown in Ex. RW1/C the year-wise mandays details of workers of Division HPPWD Killar were certainly junior to petitioner who were given sufficient work existing in those years more than 200 days in a year whereas the petitioner had been not given muster roll for the whole month. Ex. RW1/C also established that all the co- workers shown in this document have worked for more than 160 days in most of the years although they were junior to petitioner. Evidently, there is no iota of evidence of respondent establishing that petitioner was called upon to join for service at any time after October, 2005 even at the time when junior persons were reengaged. That being so the respondent had certainly violated the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act as the juniors workers mentioned in para no.10 of the affidavit were retained whereas petitioner was senior from these co-workers having joined service in 2002 was terminated and even thereafter respondent omitted to afford opportunity to petitioner for reemployment for work which also violates the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of Central Bank of India vs. S. Satyam, 1996 (5) SCC 419 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for the applicability of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act, there was no necessity of claimant/petitioner to have worked for 240 days as in case of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

16. Repudiating claim of petitioner, the respondent, on the other hand, has made futile attempt to justify engagement of junior workers and their retention in service on the basis of orders of Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Court of H.P. as reflected in Ex. RW1/C1 to Ex RW1/C4. These judgments/orders have been gone through which revealed that respondent had wrongly terminated the services of those claimant/petitioner 2676 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 and for said reasons they were directed to be reinstated. Thus, plea that persons were directed to be appointed in pursuance to awards/orders Ext. Rw1/C1 to Ex. RW1/C4 were primarily on the basis of court orders would not defeat the claim of the petitioner as status of these person being junior to petitioner does not get negatived. As such, even when petitioner is proved to have not worked for more than 160 days in preceding 8 years which entitled his for regularization of his service per government policy, yet respondent is not absolved from its accountability of provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act and as such it is held that respondent had violated the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act.

17. Ld. counsel for petitioner has contended that after petitioner's termination in October, 2005, he had remained unemployed and was not earning anything thereafter as such was entitled for full back wages. Repudiating the arguments of ld. Authorized Representative of petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. for the State has taken this court through cross-examination of the petitioner who has admitted that he had cultivatable land with his and also worked a private labourer. Thus, plea of having remained not gainfully employed gets belied admission of petitioner in cross-examination in which he had maintained that he had been earning from agricultural land as well as he has been working as daily wager privately. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. M. Nagangouda (2007) 10 SCC 765 in which Division Bench comprising of Justice A.R. Lakshmanan and Justice Altamas Kabir had held that 'term gainfully employment would also include self employment wherefrom income is generated. It was income either from employment in an establishment or from self employment merely differentiates the sources from which income is generated, the end use being the same'. Applying the ratio of judgment of 2007 (supra) to this case since the petitioner was earning from his agricultural and manual pursuits, the same were sufficient to maintain his and his family. It is thus held that petitioner was gainfully employed. Be it stated here that Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase's case has held that the Labour Court was not justified in holding that merely because the respondent was receiving agriculture income, he cannot be treated to be engaged in gainful employment. Since the petitioner had income from agriculture pursuits for his livelihood it cannot be stated that petitioner was not gainfully employed and thus would not be entitled full back wages. In view of the forgoing discussion, it is held that the relationship of workman and employer existed between petitioner and respondent and that petitioner was illegally retrenched without compliance of Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Act although remained gainfully employed after his retrenchment. Thus, applying the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court (2007 supra), it may not be erroneous to hold that petitioner was gainfully employed and thus would be not entitled for back wages for the period he was out of job on being terminated by the respondent.

18. Lastly, Ld. Dy. D.A. for State has contended with vehemence that there is inordinate and explained delay which disentitles petitieonr relief claimed for by him. On the other hand, ld. Authorized Representative for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014 Lab IC 4266 (SC) and the relevant paras of the judgment are produced below for reference:

"12. Therefore, in our considered view, the observations made by this Court in the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board case (supra) upon which the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana has placed reliance cannot be applied to the fact situation of the case on hand, for the reason that the Labour Court has erroneously rejected the reference without judiciously considering all the relevant factors of the case particularly the points of dispute referred to it and answered the2677 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 2nd issue regarding the reference being barred by limitation but not on the merits of the case. The said decision has no application to the fact situation and also for the reason the catena of decisions of this Court referred to supra, wherein this Court has categorically held that the provisions of Limitation Act under Article 137 has no application to make reference by the appropriate government to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of existing industrial dispute between workmen and the employer.

13. In the case on hand, no doubt there is a delay in raising the dispute by the appellant; the Labour Court nevertheless has the power to mould the relief accordingly. At the time of adjudication, if the dispute referred to the Labour Court is not adjudicated by it, it does not mean that the dispute ceases to exist. The appropriate government in exercise of its statutory power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act can refer the industrial dispute, between the parties, at any time, to either the jurisdictional Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal as interpreted by this Court in the Avon Services case referred to supra. Therefore, the State Government has rightly exercised its power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act and referred the points of dispute to the Labour Court as the same are in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Avon Services & Sapan Kumar Pandit cases referred to supra.

14. Further, the workman cannot be denied to seek relief only on the ground of delay in raising the dispute as held in the case of S.M. Nilajkar & Ors. v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka[4] it was held by this Court as follows—

"17. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that on account of delay in raising the dispute by the appellants the High Court was justified in denying relief to the appellants. We cannot agree...... In Ratan Chandra Sammanta and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra)1993 AIR SCW 2214, it was held that a casual labourer retrenched by the employer deprives himself of remedy available in law by delay itself, lapse of time results in losing the remedy and the right as well. The delay would certainly be fatal if it has resulted in material evidence relevant to adjudication being lost and rendered not available. However, we do not think that the delay in the case at hand has been so culpable as to disentitle the appellants for any relief....." (Emphasis laid by the Court) In view of the legal principles laid down by this Court in the above judgment, the reference of the industrial dispute made in the case on hand by the State Government to the Labour Court to adjudicate the existing industrial dispute between the parties was made within a reasonable time, considering the circumstances in which the workman was placed, firstly, as there was a criminal case pending against his and secondly, the respondent had assured the workman that he would be reinstated after his acquittal from the criminal case. Moreover, it is reasonable to adjudicate the industrial dispute in spite of the delay in raising and referring the matter, since there is no mention of any loss or unavailability of material evidence due to the delay. Thus, we do not consider the delay in raising the industrial dispute and referring the same to the Labour Court for adjudication as gravely erroneous and it does not debar the workman from claiming rightful relief from his employer.

15. In the case of Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum- Processing Service Society Limited & Anr.[5] this Court has opined that relief cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay, stating that:—

"10. It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if2678 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labour court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay in shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/ termination or dismissal. The Court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full back wages....." (Emphasis laid by the Court)

16. Hence, we are of the opinion, having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case that there is no delay or latches on the part of the workman from the date of his acquittal in the criminal case. Thereafter, upon failure of the respondent in adhering to the assurance given to the workman that he would be reinstated after his acquittal from the criminal case, the workman approached the conciliation officer and the State Government to make a reference to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute with regard to the order of dismissal passed by the respondent. Keeping in mind the date of acquittal of the appellant and the date on which he approached the conciliation officer by raising the dispute, since the respondent had not adhered to its assurance, the State Government had rightly referred the dispute for its adjudication. Therefore it cannot be said that there was a delay on the part of the appellant in raising the dispute and getting it referred to the Labour Court by the State Government.

17. Further, the Labour Court on an erroneous assumption of law framed the additional issue regarding the limitation in raising the dispute and its reference by the State Government to the Labour Court. Thus, the Labour Court has ignored the legal principles laid down by this Court in the cases referred to supra. The award passed by the Labour Court was accepted erroneously by both the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court by dismissing the Civil Writ Petition & the Letters Patent Appeal without examining the case in its proper perspective, keeping in view the power of the State Government under Section 10(1)(c) and the object and intendment of the Act. Not adjudicating the existing industrial dispute on merits between the parties referred to it may lead to disruption of industrial peace and harmony, which is the foremost important aspect in Industrial Jurisprudence as the same would affect the public interest at large.

19. Ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has also contended with vehemence that claim petition is barred by limitation on account of delay and laches. It has been pointed that termination of petitioner in this case took place on 2005 and the industrial dispute was raised after several years of retrenchment. Repudiating the argument by ld. counsel, ld. AR for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment reported in 2007 LHLJ 903 Hon'ble High Court of H.P. (Bhatag Ram's case) in which it has been held that delay in raising dispute may be considered by court at the time of granting final relief however in various other judgments even longer delay has been condoned. In Divisional Manager, HPFC & another vs. Garibu Ram, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 1160, delay of more than 10 years was condoned besides Hon'ble High Court has held that principle of Limitation Act is not applicable to the industrial dispute. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajayab Singh vs. Sirhind Co- operative Marketing- cum-Processing Society Limited and Another, (1999) 6 SCC 82 in which it has been held that the principle of Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply to the proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act.

20. Relying upon the aforestated judgment, it has been contended that claim of petitioner cannot be defeated on the point of delay and laches. Repudiating arguments2679 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 advanced by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub- Division Kota and Mohan Lal [2013 (139) FLR 125], the relevant para of the judgment are produced below for reference:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 25-F and 10- Limitation Act, 1963- Section 5- Industrial dispute- Termination of service-Finding of Lboaur Court that workman had completed 240 days in calander year and her termination was in violation o section 25-F of the I.D.Act- Wrokman worked from 1.11.1984 to 17.2.1986 in all 286 days during employment. her services terminated on 18.2.1986. Industrial dispute raised after 6 years of termination. Admitted delay of 6 years not kept in view by the Labour Court- Judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court flawed and unsustainable. Reinstatement of the workman not the appropriate relief. In lieu of reinstatement compensation of Rs.one lac directed to be paid to the workman by the appellant- employer within six weeks failing which interest @ workman 9% p.a. will be payable. [Paras 21 and 22] Limitation Act, 1963. Section 5-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Section 25-F- Termination of service- Industrial dispute raised after six years- Limitation Act not applicable to reference made under the I.D. Act-Delay in raising industrial disputes definitely an important circumstances which the Labour Court must keep in view before granting relief".

21. Repudiating the arguments by ld. Dy. D.A. for the State, ld. counsel for claimant/petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Tapash Kumar Paul vs. BSNL & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 357 wherein Hon'ble Court held that a Court may pass an order of reinstatement by awarding compensation but the same has to be based on justifiable grounds. In this judgment, it was held that compensation can be granted in a situation where the industry is closed or that employees has superannuated or going to retire shortly and no period is left to his credit or where workman has been rendered in capacitated to discharge duties cannot be reinstated and/or fourthly when he has lost confidence of the management to discharge duties. It was observed that there may be appropriate cases on facts which may justify substituting an order of reinstatement by award of compensation but that has to be supported by some legal and justifiable reasons indicating why the reinstatement should be followed to be substituted by award of compensation. Ld. counsel for the petitioner with the aid of above-said judgment had argued that there are only four situations when a worker may be awarded compensation instead of reinstatement but the judgment has certainly not been correctly appreciated by ld. counsel as this judgment postulates probable four situations which are illustrate in nature where compensation may be awarded instead of reinstatement but that does not mean that except the four grounds, no other ground would be appropriate for awarding compensation. In the case in hand before this court, it has come that petitioner had abandoned the job who did not report for duty for several years and later gave notice requesting for joining of duties but the conditions in para no.5 of judgment (2015 supra) even if not met requirement, cannot be a ground to reinstate the petitioner and it is only compensation which would be appropriate relief. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'be Apex Court titled as Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and Ors. reported in AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 121, Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014(3) Apex Court Judgments 652. I have gone through these judgments and of view that they don't come to rescue the petitioner on point of reinstatement instead of compensation. Ld. Dy. D.A. for State on the other hand has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh v. Akhilesh Kumar Khare & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 3473. It has been contended that engagement of claimant/petitioner in this 2680 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 case was not through regular mode of recruitment and applying the ratio of this judgment AIR 2015 SC supra, claim of petitioner for reinstatement can be negated and thus compensation would be sufficient for redressal of grievance of the claimant/petitioner. Similarly, in 2016 (1) Him. L.R. 502 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Chaman Singh relied by ld. AR for petitioner interpretation of Section 137 of Limitation Act was involved which provides that Article 137 of Limitation Act did not apply to industrial disputes. In 2014 (3) Apex Court Judgment 652 (SC) similar view was reiterated which clearly mandates that claimant/petitioner cannot be denied relief sought for merely on the ground of delay and laches. That being so, the law remains as it was that ground of delay and laches, claimant/petitioner cannot be denied relief rather the court has to consider various aspects before moulding relief and the case in hand it would not be erroneous to mention here that the claimant/petitioner can be reasonably indemnified by ordering compensation and not by reinstatement. In so far as judgment of AIR 2015 SC 1373 titled as Mackinon Machenize & Company Ltd. vs. Mackinon Employees Union is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held on closure of unit of company principle of 'Last come First go' was not followed which violated Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act and retrenchment was held illegal entitling petitioner for retrenchment compensation. Since the facts of case of Mackinon Machenize's case are different from case in hand as in former closure of unit of company was involved whereas in case in hand before this court, there is no closure of company rather it is the department of HPPWD which had engaged petitioner without following of the procedure although subject to funds and availability of work but in the case in hand petitioner had abandoned the job who never reported for duty. As such, when there is no closure of any unit by respondent which the petitioner was engaged, judgment of Mackinon Machenize cannot be made applicable.

22. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and case law relied by them, it can be safely concluded that delay in raising industrial dispute is certainly important aspect/circumstance which court has to keep in mind while exercising discretion. In para nos. 20 and 21 of the judgment as referred to in this case reported in 2013 (136) FLR 893 (SC) titled as Assistant Engineer Rajasthan Development Corporation and another vs. Geetam Singh provides that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court or Tribunal has to keep in mind all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment (2013 supra) before that workman had worked for 286 days and had raised industrial dispute in 1992 whereas her services have been terminated in 1986 and she raised industrial dispute after six years. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that though compensation awarded by Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court was too low and liable to be enhanced by the Division Bench but surely reinstatement of the workman in the facts and circumstances is not the appropriate relief and thus Hon'ble Apex Court awarded a lump-sum of Rs.1 lakh along-with interest @ 9% per annum if the respondent failed to make payment of compensation within six weeks from the date of judgment. In the case in hand before this court factors which have weighed are that the petitioner in all remained engaged for about 4 years and actually worked for 390 days as per mandays chart on record and that the services of petitioner were disengaged in October, 2005 who worked as non skilled worker and had raised industrial dispute by issuance of demand notice after about nine years i.e. demand notice was given dated nil. Taking into consideration factors mentioned above in pursuance to judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above, petitioner would not be entitled either for reinstatement or for back wages but a lump-sum compensation would be appropriate relief in view of judgment 2013 (139) FLR 25 (SC). The judgments relied upon by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner on the matter of delay and laches is more or less settled law that claim of the petitioner could not be solely declined on the ground of delay and laches. Similarly, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in 2014 titled as Raghubir Singh's case also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner as in2681 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 this judgment also the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the mandate as given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in previous judgment in the year 2013 i.e. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division Kota and Mohan Lal's case. I have gone through these judgments which are not attracted in this present case as this court not declining relief to the petitioner on the ground of limitation rather on the basis of guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court laid down in judgment of 2013.

23. In view of foregoing discussion, a lump-sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) would be appropriate relief to which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above. It is further made clear that amount of compensation shall be paid within four months from the date of Award failing which the petitioner would be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from date of Award till its realization. Issues no. 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.4

24. On the plea of non-maintainability of the claim petition under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has failed to allege in reply in what manner petition is not maintainable. Thus, vague plea merits rejection outright. Otherwise also, from pleadings and evidence on record, no inference of claim petition being not maintainable could be raised against claimant/petitioner. This issue is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondent.

RELIEF

25. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, the respondent is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the petitioner in lieu of the reinstatement in services as well as the other consequential service benefits. Amount of compensation so awarded will be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within four months from today failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay the interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of award till the date of its realization. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

26. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

27. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette.

28. File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room. Announced in the open Court today this 5th day of May, 2016.

(K. K. Sharma) Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal,

Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA (HP)

Ref. No. : 282/2015

Date of Institution : 13.07.2015

Date of Decision : 05.05.2016

Shri Shridhar s/o Shri Sunum Guru, r/o Village Chaloli, P.O. Dharwas, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. ….Petitioner.

Versus

Executive Engineer, Killar Division, H.P.P.W.D. Division Killar, Tehsil Pangi, ....Respondent. District Chamba, H.P.

Reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. O.P. Bhardwaj, Adv.

For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A.

AWARD

The reference given below has been received from the appropriate Government for adjudication:

"Whether the industrial dispute raised by the worker Shri Shridhar S/O Shri Sunum Guru, R/O Village Chaloli, P.O. Dharwas, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. before the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, H.P.P.W.D. Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. vide demand notice dated 14.05.2012 regarding his alleged illegal termination of service during October, 2003 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Shri Shridhar S/O Shri Sunum Guru, R/O Village Chaloli, P.O. Dharwas, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, H.P.P.W.D. Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. during October, 2003 without complying 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 aggrieved workman is entitled to from the above employer?" 2. On receipt of reference from appropriate government, notices were issued to the parties in pursuance to which claimant/petitioner has filed statement of claim.

3. Brief facts as enumerated in the present claim petition by the petitioner above named reveal that he had been initially engaged as daily waged beldar on muster roll basis in the year 1996 who continuously worked till October, 2003 with the respondent. Averments made in the petition further revealed that petitioner had worked for 160 days in each calendar year as the criteria prescribed for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil District Chamba and became eligible for continuous service envisaged under statutory provisions of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity). Averments made in the petition revealed that the services of petitioner had interrupted by way of intermittent/artificial breaks given by the respondent/department deliberately and as such breaks are required to be counted as continuous services for the purposes of calculation of 160 days so as for the applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. The grievance of petitioner remains that2683 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 respondent/department had terminated/disengaged petitioner from daily wage service orally without issuing any one month notice in writing indicating the reason for retrenchment besides no retrenchment compensation was paid to petitioner while respondent had illegally terminated his service. It is contended that respondent had not followed the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act while disengaging the services of petitioner. It is stated that petitioner is very poor and no source of income besides after termination of the services of petitioner, he had approached the respondent time and again but of no avail. Grievance of petitioner further remains that when the services of petitioner have been terminated, respondent/department had reengaged number of new workman from time to time and respondent had not followed the principle of 'Last come, First go' as envisaged under Section 25-G of the Act. It is further alleged that respondent/department had continuously retained junior to petitioner and who are still in service with the respondent namely Suraj Ram who appointed in 1997, Mohan Lal in 1996, Chunku Ram in 2000, Budhi Ram in 2003 and Dev Raj in 2004. The claimant/petitioner claimed that he had spotless service record who never been charge-sheeted for any act of indiscipline or negligence or his conduct and even at the time of verbal termination, no charge-sheet had been served upon his and the at the same time, no opportunity of hearing had been afforded to him. The petitioner also alleges that he has remained unemployed ever since his illegal termination from month of October, 2004 till the date of institution of present claim petition who had been nowhere gainfully employed and was thus entitled for full back wages. Accordingly alleging respondent to have committed violation of statutory provision of Section 25-F, Section 25-G and Section 25- H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for setting aside oral order of termination/retrenchment by the respondent in the month of October, 2003. He further prayed for reinstatement in service w.e.f. month of October, 2003 along-with back wages, seniority including continuity in service as petitioner has remained unemployed since the date of his illegal termination. The petitioner has also prayed that period of intermittent/fictional breaks given time and again during entire service of petitioner between 1996 to October, 2003 be counted 160 days continuous service and regularization of the service of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2004 having completed 8 years of service and per the policy of HP Govt. in pursuance to law settled by Hon'ble High Court of H.P. and to any other relief petitioner is entitled.

4. The respondent contested claim petition, filed reply inter-alia taken preliminary objections of maintainability, claim petition being bad on account of delay and laches. On merits denied that petitioner had worked for more than 160 days in each calendar year rather clarified by stating that petitioner was engaged as daily waged beldar in 1996 who remained engaged till 2003 but had worked intermittently as petitioner used to come and attend the work at his own sweet will and convenience. Relying upon the mandays chart, it has been categorically pleaded by the respondent that petitioner had not completed 160 days in each calendar year as required for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil. Allegations of fictional breaks given by respondent to the petitioner have been denied. In so far as engagement of persons junior to petitioner mentioned in para no. 10 of the claim petition were appointed as per order of Labour Court and no other juniors to the petitioner had been retained in service by the respondent. On the plea of termination of service of petitioner, respondent specifically alleges that petitioner had left the job at his own will therefore serving of notice or pay in lieu thereof was not required. Reiterating its stand respondent has maintained that petitioner had left the work of his own sweet will and the persons mentioned in para no.10 are stated to have engaged as per direction of the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal Dharamshala and respondent had not violated the principle of 'Last come, First go'. It is also contended that if petitioner had been terminated in 2003 he would have definitely raised industrial dispute immediately and that after seven years petitioner is stated to be agitating the matter which is bad on account of delay and laches. It is also contended that since the services of petitioner had not been terminated by the respondent, question of issuance of notice or wages in lieu thereof did not arise and at 2684 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 the same time, there was no necessity for charge-sheet or issuing any notice of petitioner after his termination. It is contended that petitioner was agriculturist and gainfully employed and was thus not entitled for back wages.

5. The petitioner filed rejoinder, reiterated his stand as maintained in the claim petition. Further asserted that provisions of Limitation Act did not eclipse the claim of petitioner in totality besides allegation of violation of principle of 'Last come First go' was specifically denied.

6. In order to prove his case, petitioner had examined himself as PW1 tendered/proved his affidavit Ex. PW1/A under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, copy of demand notice Ex. PW1/B, copy of reply dated 17.5.2013 Ex. PW1/C, copy of report under Section 12(4) of I.D. Act Ex. PW1/D, Ex. PW1/E copy of order dated 28.2.2011, Ex. PW1/F copy of order dated 30.5.2015 and Ex. PW1/G mandays chart and closed evidence. On the other hand, repudiating the evidence led by the petitioner, respondent examined RW1 Shri Bal Krishan Kapil, the then Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Killar as RW1 tendered/proved mandays chart of petitioner Ex. RW1/B, Ex. RW1/C copy of mandays chart of co-workers, Ex. RW1/C1 to Ex. RW1/C4 copy of orders/awards and closed the evidence.

7. I have heard the ld. counsel of petitioner and ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent, gone through records of the case carefully relevant for disposed of this case.

8. From the contentions raised, following issues were framed on 27.11.2015 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated 14.05.2012 qua his termination of service during October, 2003 by respondent suffers from the vice of delay and laches as alleged? If so, its effect? …OPP.

2. Whether termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent during October, 2003 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged? … OPP.

3. If issue no. 2 is proved in affirmative, to what service benefits the petitioner is …OPP.

entitled to?

4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? …OPR.

Relief.

9. For the reasons detailed here under, my findings on the above issues are as follows:—

Issue No.1 : Yes

Issue No.2 : Yes

Issue No.3 : Discussed

Issue No.4 : No

Relief. : Petition is partly allowed awarding compensation Rs.80,000/- per operative part of award.

ISSUES NO. 1 TO 3

10. All these issues have been taken up together for discussion being interconnected which can be disposed of simultaneously without repetition of evidence.

11. Relationship of petitioner having been engaged as daily waged beldar by respondent on muster roll basis in the year 1996 continuously worked till October, 2003 with the respondent is not in dispute. Admittedly, petitioner was engaged without any written order or settlement of terms and conditions by the respondent. It is equally not in dispute that no written order was passed while terminating service of the petitioner as claim of respondent remains that it had not retrenched petitioner from service who had abandoned the job of his own and used to work intermittently as per his own wish and convenience. Admittedly, the reference of appropriate govt. does not relate to plea of fictional breaks but only with regard to petitioner's termination from service. In the backdrop of foregoing admitted facts on record, claim of petitioner requires to be adjudicated with a view to determine if petitioner is entitled for relief of reinstatement and back wages along-with seniority and past service benefits and compensation as claimed by him.

12. Stepping into witness box as PW1 has sworn in affidavit Ex. PW1/A reiterating and reaffirming his pleadings as stipulated in claim petition. In his affidavit he has claimed to have worked with the respondent/department for more than 160 days in Pangi Sub Division Chamba District and remained engaged from 1996 to October, 2003. He has also stated on oath that no notice under Section 25- F of the Act was given by the respondent before terminating his service and at the same time no compensation in lieu thereof notice period was paid to his and thus his termination was illegal and void entitling petitioner benefit of reinstatement of service with full back wages and all the other consequential service benefits. The petitioner has further alleged on oath that respondent/department after terminating his services in October, 2003 by oral order had engaged several co-workers who were junior to petitioner were retained in service. Not only this, the persons who were junior to petitioner are stated to have been regularized in service and thus respondent had not followed the mandate of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act which was obligatory on its part. The case of petitioner also remains that he had served respondent with due diligence and had spotless service record as respondent/department had never called any explanation or raised charge-sheet against his but even while retrenching petitioner from service, no notice was given. The petitioner has also explained reason for not approaching the authorities under Labour Act and thereafter before this Tribunal, as there existed no road between Chamba town to Pangi Tehsil till 2012 and petitioner had moved before the Labour Officer raising demand notice consequent upon which a failure report was submitted and as the Labour Commissioner did not make reference for industrial dispute raised by petitioner, the petitioner had moved before the Hon'ble High Court by filing CWP where direction was passed for making reference to the Labour Court due to which delay had occurred and same was satisfactorily explained.

13. In so far as plea of abandonment raised by respondent is concerned, the same merits rejection in view of the fact that respondent had failed to produce any record by which it could be established that whenever petitioner absented from his duty as also reflected in mandays chart Ex. RW1/B any notice or letter was ever issued. On this point respondent as RW1 has specifically admitted that whenever petitioner abandoned the job, no notice had been issued. RW1 specifically admitted that no departmental inquiry was initiated against petitioner even after October, 2003. No reason whatsoever has been assigned for such any action or omission on the part of respondent in not initiating any departmental proceedings or making 2686 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 correspondence calling upon the petitioner to join service. This prima facie belies the stand taken by the respondent as abandonment has to be proved like any other fact in issue. The petitioner, on the other hand, as PW1 in cross-examination has specifically denied that he used to leave the job in between and attended the work intermittently rather he has claimed that intermit breaks had been deliberately given to his by the respondent in the service record of petitioner so that petitioner did not complete 160 days of work as required for Pangi Tehsil area and also for applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. As such, in absence of any specific and reliable evidence led by respondent, it would be unsafe to hold that respondent had established plea of abandonment.

14. A bare glance on the mandays chart Ex. RW1/B would reveal that petitioner had worked for 121 days in the year 1996, 83 days in 1997, 143 days in 1998, 98 days in 1999, 133 days in 2000, 101 days in 2001, 102 days in 2002 and 63 days in 2003 and thus a total of his service in 1996 to 2003 in 8 years he had worked for 844 days in his entire service period. Be it noticed that petitioner had not worked for more than 160 days and as there is no reference from the Labour Commissioner, Shimla on the point of artificial breaks, this court is to confine its findings only with regard to alleged illegal termination. It is evident from mandays chart Ex. RW1/B that in the year 2003 the petitioner had merely worked for 63 days and thus immediately in preceding 12 calendar months from the month of termination of petitioner had not rendered service of 160 days so as to meet requirement of law of having continuous service of one year and thus it was not at all required from respondent to have issued a notice envisaged under Section 25-F of the Act. As such, the respondent is held to have not violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

15. Ld. counsel for petitioner has contended with vehemence that large number of workers who were junior to petitioner had been appointed and these workers have been retained in service and regularized. The grievance of petitioner remains that principle of 'Last come First go' was not followed as the juniors were retained and services of petitioner despite being senior was terminated without any valid reason. Ex. RW1/C is the year-wise mandays of daily waged workers who were junior to the petitioner and had joined in the year 1994 or thereafter. All of these co-workers shown in Ex. RW1/C the year-wise mandays details of workers of Division HPPWD Killar were certainly junior to petitioner who were given sufficient work existing in those years more than 200 days in a year whereas the petitioner had been not given muster roll for the whole month. Ex. RW1/C also established that all the co- workers shown in this document have worked for more than 160 days in most of the years although they were junior to petitioner. Evidently, there is no iota of evidence of respondent establishing that petitioner was called upon to join for service at any time after October, 2003 even at the time when junior persons were reengaged. That being so the respondent had certainly violated the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act as the juniors workers mentioned in para no.10 of the affidavit were retained whereas petitioner was senior from these co-workers having joined service in 1996 was terminated and even thereafter respondent omitted to afford opportunity to petitioner for reemployment for work which also violates the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of Central Bank of India vs. S. Satyam, 1996 (5) SCC 419 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for the applicability of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act, there was no necessity of claimant/petitioner to have worked for 240 days as in case of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

16. Repudiating claim of petitioner, the respondent, on the other hand, has made futile attempt to justify engagement of junior workers and their retention in service on the basis of orders of Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Court of H.P. as reflected in Ex. RW1/C1 to Ex RW1/C4. These judgments/orders have been gone through2687 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 which revealed that respondent had wrongly terminated the services of those claimant/petitioner and for said reasons they were directed to be reinstated. Thus, plea that persons were directed to be appointed in pursuance to awards/orders Ext. Rw1/C1 to Ex. RW1/C4 were primarily on the basis of court orders would not defeat the claim of the petitioner as status of these person being junior to petitioner does not get negatived. As such, even when petitioner is proved to have not worked for more than 160 days in preceding 8 years which entitled his for regularization of his service per government policy, yet respondent is not absolved from its accountability of provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act and as such it is held that respondent had violated the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. 17. Ld. counsel for petitioner has contended that after petitioner's termination in October, 2003, he had remained unemployed and was not earning anything thereafter as such was entitled for full back wages. Repudiating the arguments of ld. Authorized Representative of petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. for the State has taken this court through cross-examination of the petitioner who has admitted that he had cultivatable land with his and also worked a private labourer. Thus, plea of having remained not gainfully employed gets belied admission of petitioner in cross-examination in which he had maintained that he had been earning from agricultural land as well as he has been working as daily wager privately. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. M. Nagangouda (2007) 10 SCC 765 in which Division Bench comprising of Justice A.R. Lakshmanan and Justice Altamas Kabir had held that 'term gainfully employment would also include self employment wherefrom income is generated. It was income either from employment in an establishment or from self employment merely differentiates the sources from which income is generated, the end use being the same'. Applying the ratio of judgment of 2007 (supra) to this case since the petitioner was earning from his agricultural and manual pursuits, the same were sufficient to maintain his and his family. It is thus held that petitioner was gainfully employed. Be it stated here that Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase's case has held that the Labour Court was not justified in holding that merely because the respondent was receiving agriculture income, he cannot be treated to be engaged in gainful employment. Since the petitioner had income from agriculture pursuits for his livelihood it cannot be stated that petitioner was not gainfully employed and thus would not be entitled full back wages. In view of the forgoing discussion, it is held that the relationship of workman and employer existed between petitioner and respondent and that petitioner was illegally retrenched without compliance of Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Act although remained gainfully employed after his retrenchment. Thus, applying the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court (2007 supra), it may not be erroneous to hold that petitioner was gainfully employed and thus would be not entitled for back wages for the period he was out of job on being terminated by the respondent.

18. Lastly, Ld. Dy. D.A. for State has contended with vehemence that there is inordinate and explained delay which disentitles petitieonr relief claimed for by him. On the other hand, ld. Authorized Representative for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014 Lab IC 4266 (SC) and the relevant paras of the judgment are produced below for reference:

"12. Therefore, in our considered view, the observations made by this Court in the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board case (supra) upon which the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana has placed reliance cannot be applied to the fact situation of the case on hand, for the reason that the Labour Court has erroneously rejected the reference without judiciously considering all the relevant factors of the case particularly the points of dispute referred to it and answered the2688 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 2nd issue regarding the reference being barred by limitation but not on the merits of the case. The said decision has no application to the fact situation and also for the reason the catena of decisions of this Court referred to supra, wherein this Court has categorically held that the provisions of Limitation Act under Article 137 has no application to make reference by the appropriate government to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of existing industrial dispute between workmen and the employer.

13. In the case on hand, no doubt there is a delay in raising the dispute by the appellant; the Labour Court nevertheless has the power to mould the relief accordingly. At the time of adjudication, if the dispute referred to the Labour Court is not adjudicated by it, it does not mean that the dispute ceases to exist. The appropriate government in exercise of its statutory power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act can refer the industrial dispute, between the parties, at any time, to either the jurisdictional Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal as interpreted by this Court in the Avon Services case referred to supra. Therefore, the State Government has rightly exercised its power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act and referred the points of dispute to the Labour Court as the same are in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Avon Services & Sapan Kumar Pandit cases referred to supra.

14. Further, the workman cannot be denied to seek relief only on the ground of delay in raising the dispute as held in the case of S.M. Nilajkar & Ors. v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka[4] it was held by this Court as follows-

"17. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that on account of delay in raising the dispute by the appellants the High Court was justified in denying relief to the appellants. We cannot agree...... In Ratan Chandra Sammanta and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra)1993 AIR SCW 2214, it was held that a casual labourer retrenched by the employer deprives himself of remedy available in law by delay itself, lapse of time results in losing the remedy and the right as well. The delay would certainly be fatal if it has resulted in material evidence relevant to adjudication being lost and rendered not available. However, we do not think that the delay in the case at hand has been so culpable as to disentitle the appellants for any relief....." (Emphasis laid by the Court) In view of the legal principles laid down by this Court in the above judgment, the reference of the industrial dispute made in the case on hand by the State Government to the Labour Court to adjudicate the existing industrial dispute between the parties was made within a reasonable time, considering the circumstances in which the workman was placed, firstly, as there was a criminal case pending against his and secondly, the respondent had assured the workman that he would be reinstated after his acquittal from the criminal case. Moreover, it is reasonable to adjudicate the industrial dispute in spite of the delay in raising and referring the matter, since there is no mention of any loss or unavailability of material evidence due to the delay. Thus, we do not consider the delay in raising the industrial dispute and referring the same to the Labour Court for adjudication as gravely erroneous and it does not debar the workman from claiming rightful relief from his employer.

15. In the case of Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum- Processing Service Society Limited & Anr.[5] this Court has opined that relief cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay, stating that:—

"10. It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if2689 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labour court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay in shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/ termination or dismissal. The Court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full back wages....." (Emphasis laid by the Court)

16. Hence, we are of the opinion, having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case that there is no delay or latches on the part of the workman from the date of his acquittal in the criminal case. Thereafter, upon failure of the respondent in adhering to the assurance given to the workman that he would be reinstated after his acquittal from the criminal case, the workman approached the conciliation officer and the State Government to make a reference to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute with regard to the order of dismissal passed by the respondent. Keeping in mind the date of acquittal of the appellant and the date on which he approached the conciliation officer by raising the dispute, since the respondent had not adhered to its assurance, the State Government had rightly referred the dispute for its adjudication. Therefore it cannot be said that there was a delay on the part of the appellant in raising the dispute and getting it referred to the Labour Court by the State Government.

17. Further, the Labour Court on an erroneous assumption of law framed the additional issue regarding the limitation in raising the dispute and its reference by the State Government to the Labour Court. Thus, the Labour Court has ignored the legal principles laid down by this Court in the cases referred to supra. The award passed by the Labour Court was accepted erroneously by both the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court by dismissing the Civil Writ Petition & the Letters Patent Appeal without examining the case in its proper perspective, keeping in view the power of the State Government under Section 10(1)(c) and the object and intendment of the Act. Not adjudicating the existing industrial dispute on merits between the parties referred to it may lead to disruption of industrial peace and harmony, which is the foremost important aspect in Industrial Jurisprudence as the same would affect the public interest at large.

19. Ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has also contended with vehemence that claim petition is barred by limitation on account of delay and laches. It has been pointed that termination of petitioner in this case took place on 2003 and the industrial dispute was raised after several years of retrenchment. Repudiating the argument by ld. counsel, ld. AR for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment reported in 2007 LHLJ 903 Hon'ble High Court of H.P. (Bhatag Ram's case) in which it has been held that delay in raising dispute may be considered by court at the time of granting final relief however in various other judgments even longer delay has been condoned. In Divisional Manager, HPFC & another vs. Garibu Ram, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 1160, delay of more than 10 years was condoned besides Hon'ble High Court has held that principle of Limitation Act is not applicable to the industrial dispute. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajayab Singh vs. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing- cum-Processing Society Limited and Another, (1999) 6 SCC 82 in which it has been held that the principle of Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply to the proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act.

20. Relying upon the aforestated judgment, it has been contended that claim of petitioner cannot be defeated on the point of delay and laches. Repudiating arguments 2690 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 advanced by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub- Division Kota and Mohan Lal [2013 (139) FLR 125], the relevant para of the judgment are produced below for reference:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 25-F and 10- Limitation Act, 1963- Section 5- Industrial dispute- Termination of service-Finding of Lboaur Court that workman had completed 240 days in calander year and her termination was in violation o section 25-F of the I.D.Act- Wrokman worked from 1.11.1984 to 17.2.1986 in all 286 days during employment. her services terminated on 18.2.1986. Industrial dispute raised after 6 years of termination. Admitted delay of 6 years not kept in view by the Labour Court- Judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court flawed and unsustainable. Reinstatement of the workman not the appropriate relief. In lieu of reinstatement compensation of Rs.one lac directed to be paid to the workman by the appellant- employer within six weeks failing which interest @ workman 9% p.a. will be payable. [Paras 21 and 22] Limitation Act, 1963. Section 5- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Section 25-F- Termination of service- Industrial dispute raised after six years- Limitation Act not applicable to reference made under the I.D. Act-Delay in raising industrial disputes definitely an important circumstances which the Labour Court must keep in view before granting relief".

21. Repudiating the arguments by ld. Dy. D.A. for the State, ld. counsel for claimant/petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Tapash Kumar Paul vs. BSNL & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 357 wherein Hon'ble Court held that a Court may pass an order of reinstatement by awarding compensation but the same has to be based on justifiable grounds. In this judgment, it was held that compensation can be granted in a situation where the industry is closed or that employees has superannuated or going to retire shortly and no period is left to his credit or where workman has been rendered in capacitated to discharge duties cannot be reinstated and/or fourthly when he has lost confidence of the management to discharge duties. It was observed that there may be appropriate cases on facts which may justify substituting an order of reinstatement by award of compensation but that has to be supported by some legal and justifiable reasons indicating why the reinstatement should be followed to be substituted by award of compensation. Ld. counsel for the petitioner with the aid of above-said judgment had argued that there are only four situations when a worker may be awarded compensation instead of reinstatement but the judgment has certainly not been correctly appreciated by ld. counsel as this judgment postulates probable four situations which are illustrate in nature where compensation may be awarded instead of reinstatement but that does not mean that except the four grounds, no other ground would be appropriate for awarding compensation. In the case in hand before this court, it has come that petitioner had abandoned the job who did not report for duty for several years and later gave notice requesting for joining of duties but the conditions in para no.5 of judgment (2015 supra) even if not met requirement, cannot be a ground to reinstate the petitioner and it is only compensation which would be appropriate relief. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'be Apex Court titled as Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and Ors. reported in AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 121, Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014(3) Apex Court Judgments 652. I have gone through these judgments and of view that they don't come to rescue the petitioner on point of reinstatement instead of compensation. Ld. Dy. D.A. for State on the other hand has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh v. Akhilesh Kumar Khare & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 3473. It has been contended that engagement of claimant/petitioner in this2691 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 case was not through regular mode of recruitment and applying the ratio of this judgment AIR 2015 SC supra, claim of petitioner for reinstatement can be negated and thus compensation would be sufficient for redressal of grievance of the claimant/petitioner. Similarly, in 2016 (1) Him. L.R. 502 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Chaman Singh relied by ld. AR for petitioner interpretation of Section 137 of Limitation Act was involved which provides that Article 137 of Limitation Act did not apply to industrial disputes. In 2014 (3) Apex Court Judgment 652 (SC) similar view was reiterated which clearly mandates that claimant/petitioner cannot be denied relief sought for merely on the ground of delay and laches. That being so, the law remains as it was that ground of delay and laches, claimant/petitioner cannot be denied relief rather the court has to consider various aspects before moulding relief and the case in hand it would not be erroneous to mention here that the claimant/petitioner can be reasonably indemnified by ordering compensation and not by reinstatement. In so far as judgment of AIR 2015 SC 1373 titled as Mackinon Machenize & Company Ltd. vs. Mackinon Employees Union is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held on closure of unit of company principle of 'Last come First go' was not followed which violated Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act and retrenchment was held illegal entitling petitioner for retrenchment compensation. Since the facts of case of Mackinon Machenize's case are different from case in hand as in former closure of unit of company was involved whereas in case in hand before this court, there is no closure of company rather it is the department of HPPWD which had engaged petitioner without following of the procedure although subject to funds and availability of work but in the case in hand petitioner had abandoned the job who never reported for duty. As such, when there is no closure of any unit by respondent which the petitioner was engaged, judgment of Mackinon Machenize cannot be made applicable.

22. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and case law relied by them, it can be safely concluded that delay in raising industrial dispute is certainly important aspect/circumstance which court has to keep in mind while exercising discretion. In para nos. 20 and 21 of the judgment as referred to in this case reported in 2013 (136) FLR 893 (SC) titled as Assistant Engineer Rajasthan Development Corporation and another vs. Geetam Singh provides that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court or Tribunal has to keep in mind all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment (2013 supra) before that workman had worked for 286 days and had raised industrial dispute in 1992 whereas her services have been terminated in 1986 and she raised industrial dispute after six years. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that though compensation awarded by Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court was too low and liable to be enhanced by the Division Bench but surely reinstatement of the workman in the facts and circumstances is not the appropriate relief and thus Hon'ble Apex Court awarded a lump-sum of Rs.1 lakh along-with interest @ 9% per annum if the respondent failed to make payment of compensation within six weeks from the date of judgment. In the case in hand before this court factors which have weighed are that the petitioner in all remained engaged for about 8 years and actually worked for 844 days as per mandays chart on record and that the services of petitioner were disengaged in October, 2003 who worked as non skilled worker and had raised industrial dispute by issuance of demand notice after about nine years i.e. demand notice was given on 14.5.2012. Taking into consideration factors mentioned above in pursuance to judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above, petitioner would not be entitled either for reinstatement or for back wages but a lump-sum compensation would be appropriate relief in view of judgment 2013 (139) FLR 25 (SC). The judgments relied upon by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner on the matter of delay and laches is more or less settled law that claim of the petitioner could not be solely declined on the ground of delay and laches. Similarly, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court 2692 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 in 2014 titled as Raghubir Singh's case also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner as in this judgment also the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the mandate as given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in previous judgment in the year 2013 i.e. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division Kota and Mohan Lal's case. I have gone through these judgments which are not attracted in this present case as this court not declining relief to the petitioner on the ground of limitation rather on the basis of guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court laid down in judgment of 2013.

23. In view of foregoing discussion, a lump-sum compensation of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) would be appropriate relief to which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above. It is further made clear that amount of compensation shall be paid within four months from the date of Award failing which the petitioner would be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from date of Award till its realization. Issues no. 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.4

24. On the plea of non-maintainability of the claim petition under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has failed to allege in reply in what manner petition is not maintainable. Thus, vague plea merits rejection outright. Otherwise also, from pleadings and evidence on record, no inference of claim petition being not maintainable could be raised against claimant/petitioner. This issue is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondent.

RELIEF

25. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, the respondent is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) to the petitioner in lieu of the reinstatement in services as well as the other consequential service benefits. Amount of compensation so awarded will be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within four months from today failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay the interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of award till the date of its realization. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

26. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

27. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette.

day of May, 2016.

28. File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room. Announced in the open Court today this 5th

(K. K. Sharma) Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal,

Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA (HP)

Ref. No. : 282/2015

Date of Institution : 13.07.2015

Date of Decision : 05.05.2016

Shri Shridhar s/o Shri Sunum Guru, r/o Village Chaloli, P.O. Dharwas, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. ….Petitioner.

Versus

Executive Engineer, Killar Division, H.P.P.W.D. Division Killar, Tehsil Pangi, ....Respondent District Chamba, H.P.

Reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. O.P. Bhardwaj, Adv.

For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A.

AWARD

The reference given below has been received from the appropriate Government for adjudication:

"Whether the industrial dispute raised by the worker Shri Shridhar S/O Shri Sunum Guru, R/O Village Chaloli, P.O. Dharwas, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. before the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, H.P.P.W.D. Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. vide demand notice dated 14.05.2012 regarding his alleged illegal termination of service during October, 2003 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Shri Shridhar S/O Shri Sunum Guru, R/O Village Chaloli, P.O. Dharwas, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, H.P.P.W.D. Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. during October, 2003 without complying 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 aggrieved workman is entitled to from the above employer?" 2. On receipt of reference from appropriate government, notices were issued to the parties in pursuance to which claimant/petitioner has filed statement of claim.

3. Brief facts as enumerated in the present claim petition by the petitioner above named reveal that he had been initially engaged as daily waged beldar on muster roll basis in the year 1996 who continuously worked till October, 2003 with the respondent. Averments made in the petition further revealed that petitioner had worked for 160 days in each calendar year as the criteria prescribed for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil District Chamba and became eligible for continuous service envisaged under statutory provisions of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity). Averments made in the petition revealed that the services of petitioner had interrupted by way of intermittent/artificial breaks given by the respondent/department deliberately and as such breaks are required to 2694 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 be counted as continuous services for the purposes of calculation of 160 days so as for the applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. The grievance of petitioner remains that respondent/department had terminated/disengaged petitioner from daily wage service orally without issuing any one month notice in writing indicating the reason for retrenchment besides no retrenchment compensation was paid to petitioner while respondent had illegally terminated his service. It is contended that respondent had not followed the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act while disengaging the services of petitioner. It is stated that petitioner is very poor and no source of income besides after termination of the services of petitioner, he had approached the respondent time and again but of no avail. Grievance of petitioner further remains that when the services of petitioner have been terminated, respondent/department had reengaged number of new workman from time to time and respondent had not followed the principle of 'Last come, First go' as envisaged under Section 25-G of the Act. It is further alleged that respondent/department had continuously retained junior to petitioner and who are still in service with the respondent namely Suraj Ram who appointed in 1997, Mohan Lal in 1996, Chunku Ram in 2000, Budhi Ram in 2003 and Dev Raj in 2004. The claimant/petitioner claimed that he had spotless service record who never been charge-sheeted for any act of indiscipline or negligence or his conduct and even at the time of verbal termination, no charge-sheet had been served upon his and the at the same time, no opportunity of hearing had been afforded to him. The petitioner also alleges that he has remained unemployed ever since his illegal termination from month of October, 2004 till the date of institution of present claim petition who had been nowhere gainfully employed and was thus entitled for full back wages. Accordingly alleging respondent to have committed violation of statutory provision of Section 25-F, Section 25-G and Section 25- H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for setting aside oral order of termination/retrenchment by the respondent in the month of October, 2003. He further prayed for reinstatement in service w.e.f. month of October, 2003 along-with back wages, seniority including continuity in service as petitioner has remained unemployed since the date of his illegal termination. The petitioner has also prayed that period of intermittent/fictional breaks given time and again during entire service of petitioner between 1996 to October, 2003 be counted 160 days continuous service and regularization of the service of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2004 having completed 8 years of service and per the policy of HP Govt. in pursuance to law settled by Hon'ble High Court of H.P. and to any other relief petitioner is entitled.

4. The respondent contested claim petition, filed reply inter-alia taken preliminary objections of maintainability, claim petition being bad on account of delay and laches. On merits denied that petitioner had worked for more than 160 days in each calendar year rather clarified by stating that petitioner was engaged as daily waged beldar in 1996 who remained engaged till 2003 but had worked intermittently as petitioner used to come and attend the work at his own sweet will and convenience. Relying upon the mandays chart, it has been categorically pleaded by the respondent that petitioner had not completed 160 days in each calendar year as required for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil. Allegations of fictional breaks given by respondent to the petitioner have been denied. In so far as engagement of persons junior to petitioner mentioned in para no. 10 of the claim petition were appointed as per order of Labour Court and no other juniors to the petitioner had been retained in service by the respondent. On the plea of termination of service of petitioner, respondent specifically alleges that petitioner had left the job at his own will therefore serving of notice or pay in lieu thereof was not required. Reiterating its stand respondent has maintained that petitioner had left the work of his own sweet will and the persons mentioned in para no.10 are stated to have engaged as per direction of the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal Dharamshala and respondent had not violated the principle of 'Last come, First go'. It is also contended that if petitioner had been terminated in 2003 he would have definitely raised industrial dispute immediately and that after seven years petitioner is stated to be agitating the matter which is bad on account of delay2695 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 and laches. It is also contended that since the services of petitioner had not been terminated by the respondent, question of issuance of notice or wages in lieu thereof did not arise and at the same time, there was no necessity for charge-sheet or issuing any notice of petitioner after his termination. It is contended that petitioner was agriculturist and gainfully employed and was thus not entitled for back wages.

5. The petitioner filed rejoinder, reiterated his stand as maintained in the claim petition. Further asserted that provisions of Limitation Act did not eclipse the claim of petitioner in totality besides allegation of violation of principle of 'Last come First go' was specifically denied.

6. In order to prove his case, petitioner had examined himself as PW1 tendered/proved his affidavit Ex. PW1/A under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, copy of demand notice Ex. PW1/B, copy of reply dated 17.5.2013 Ex. PW1/C, copy of report under Section 12(4) of I.D. Act Ex. PW1/D, Ex. PW1/E copy of order dated 28.2.2011, Ex. PW1/F copy of order dated 30.5.2015 and Ex. PW1/G mandays chart and closed evidence. On the other hand, repudiating the evidence led by the petitioner, respondent examined RW1 Shri Bal Krishan Kapil, the then Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Killar as RW1 tendered/proved mandays chart of petitioner Ex. RW1/B, Ex. RW1/C copy of mandays chart of co-workers, Ex. RW1/C1 to Ex. RW1/C4 copy of orders/awards and closed the evidence.

7. I have heard the ld. counsel of petitioner and ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent, gone through records of the case carefully relevant for disposed of this case.

8. From the contentions raised, following issues were framed on 27.11.2015 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated 14.05.2012 qua his termination of service during October, 2003 by respondent suffers from the vice of delay and laches as alleged? If so, its effect? …OPP.

2. Whether termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent during October, 2003 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged? … OPP.

3. If issue no. 2 is proved in affirmative, to what service benefits the petitioner is …OPP.

entitled to?

4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? …OPR.

Relief.

9. For the reasons detailed here under, my findings on the above issues are as follows:—

Issue No.1 : Yes

Issue No.2 : Yes

Issue No.3 : Discussed

Issue No.4 : No

Relief. : Petition is partly allowed awarding compensation Rs.80,000/- per operative part of award.

ISSUES NO.1 TO 3

10. All these issues have been taken up together for discussion being interconnected which can be disposed of simultaneously without repetition of evidence.

11. Relationship of petitioner having been engaged as daily waged beldar by respondent on muster roll basis in the year 1996 continuously worked till October, 2003 with the respondent is not in dispute. Admittedly, petitioner was engaged without any written order or settlement of terms and conditions by the respondent. It is equally not in dispute that no written order was passed while terminating service of the petitioner as claim of respondent remains that it had not retrenched petitioner from service who had abandoned the job of his own and used to work intermittently as per his own wish and convenience. Admittedly, the reference of appropriate govt. does not relate to plea of fictional breaks but only with regard to petitioner's termination from service. In the backdrop of foregoing admitted facts on record, claim of petitioner requires to be adjudicated with a view to determine if petitioner is entitled for relief of reinstatement and back wages along-with seniority and past service benefits and compensation as claimed by him.

12. Stepping into witness box as PW1 has sworn in affidavit Ex. PW1/A reiterating and reaffirming his pleadings as stipulated in claim petition. In his affidavit he has claimed to have worked with the respondent/department for more than 160 days in Pangi Sub Division Chamba District and remained engaged from 1996 to October, 2003. He has also stated on oath that no notice under Section 25- F of the Act was given by the respondent before terminating his service and at the same time no compensation in lieu thereof notice period was paid to his and thus his termination was illegal and void entitling petitioner benefit of reinstatement of service with full back wages and all the other consequential service benefits. The petitioner has further alleged on oath that respondent/department after terminating his services in October, 2003 by oral order had engaged several co-workers who were junior to petitioner were retained in service. Not only this, the persons who were junior to petitioner are stated to have been regularized in service and thus respondent had not followed the mandate of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act which was obligatory on its part. The case of petitioner also remains that he had served respondent with due diligence and had spotless service record as respondent/department had never called any explanation or raised charge-sheet against his but even while retrenching petitioner from service, no notice was given. The petitioner has also explained reason for not approaching the authorities under Labour Act and thereafter before this Tribunal, as there existed no road between Chamba town to Pangi Tehsil till 2012 and petitioner had moved before the Labour Officer raising demand notice consequent upon which a failure report was submitted and as the Labour Commissioner did not make reference for industrial dispute raised by petitioner, the petitioner had moved before the Hon'ble High Court by filing CWP where direction was passed for making reference to the Labour Court due to which delay had occurred and same was satisfactorily explained.

13. In so far as plea of abandonment raised by respondent is concerned, the same merits rejection in view of the fact that respondent had failed to produce any record by which it could be established that whenever petitioner absented from his duty as also reflected in mandays chart Ex. RW1/B any notice or letter was ever issued. On this point respondent as RW1 has specifically admitted that whenever petitioner abandoned the job, no notice had been issued. RW1 specifically admitted that no departmental inquiry was initiated against petitioner even after October, 2003. No reason whatsoever has been assigned for such any action or omission on the part of respondent in not initiating any departmental proceedings or making2697 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 correspondence calling upon the petitioner to join service. This prima facie belies the stand taken by the respondent as abandonment has to be proved like any other fact in issue. The petitioner, on the other hand, as PW1 in cross-examination has specifically denied that he used to leave the job in between and attended the work intermittently rather he has claimed that intermit breaks had been deliberately given to his by the respondent in the service record of petitioner so that petitioner did not complete 160 days of work as required for Pangi Tehsil area and also for applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. As such, in absence of any specific and reliable evidence led by respondent, it would be unsafe to hold that respondent had established plea of abandonment.

14. A bare glance on the mandays chart Ex. RW1/B would reveal that petitioner had worked for 121 days in the year 1996, 83 days in 1997, 143 days in 1998, 98 days in 1999, 133 days in 2000, 101 days in 2001, 102 days in 2002 and 63 days in 2003 and thus a total of his service in 1996 to 2003 in 8 years he had worked for 844 days in his entire service period. Be it noticed that petitioner had not worked for more than 160 days and as there is no reference from the Labour Commissioner, Shimla on the point of artificial breaks, this court is to confine its findings only with regard to alleged illegal termination. It is evident from mandays chart Ex. RW1/B that in the year 2003 the petitioner had merely worked for 63 days and thus immediately in preceding 12 calendar months from the month of termination of petitioner had not rendered service of 160 days so as to meet requirement of law of having continuous service of one year and thus it was not at all required from respondent to have issued a notice envisaged under Section 25-F of the Act. As such, the respondent is held to have not violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

15. Ld. counsel for petitioner has contended with vehemence that large number of workers who were junior to petitioner had been appointed and these workers have been retained in service and regularized. The grievance of petitioner remains that principle of 'Last come First go' was not followed as the juniors were retained and services of petitioner despite being senior was terminated without any valid reason. Ex. RW1/C is the year-wise mandays of daily waged workers who were junior to the petitioner and had joined in the year 1994 or thereafter. All of these co-workers shown in Ex. RW1/C the year-wise mandays details of workers of Division HPPWD Killar were certainly junior to petitioner who were given sufficient work existing in those years more than 200 days in a year whereas the petitioner had been not given muster roll for the whole month. Ex. RW1/C also established that all the co- workers shown in this document have worked for more than 160 days in most of the years although they were junior to petitioner. Evidently, there is no iota of evidence of respondent establishing that petitioner was called upon to join for service at any time after October, 2003 even at the time when junior persons were reengaged. That being so the respondent had certainly violated the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act as the juniors workers mentioned in para no.10 of the affidavit were retained whereas petitioner was senior from these co-workers having joined service in 1996 was terminated and even thereafter respondent omitted to afford opportunity to petitioner for reemployment for work which also violates the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of Central Bank of India vs. S. Satyam, 1996 (5) SCC 419 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for the applicability of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act, there was no necessity of claimant/petitioner to have worked for 240 days as in case of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

16. Repudiating claim of petitioner, the respondent, on the other hand, has made futile attempt to justify engagement of junior workers and their retention in service on the basis of orders of Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Court of H.P. as reflected in Ex. RW1/C1 to Ex RW1/C4. These judgments/orders have been gone through 2698 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 which revealed that respondent had wrongly terminated the services of those claimant/petitioner and for said reasons they were directed to be reinstated. Thus, plea that persons were directed to be appointed in pursuance to awards/orders Ext. Rw1/C1 to Ex. RW1/C4 were primarily on the basis of court orders would not defeat the claim of the petitioner as status of these person being junior to petitioner does not get negatived. As such, even when petitioner is proved to have not worked for more than 160 days in preceding 8 years which entitled his for regularization of his service per government policy, yet respondent is not absolved from its accountability of provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act and as such it is held that respondent had violated the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. 17. Ld. counsel for petitioner has contended that after petitioner's termination in October, 2003, he had remained unemployed and was not earning anything thereafter as such was entitled for full back wages. Repudiating the arguments of ld. Authorized Representative of petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. for the State has taken this court through cross-examination of the petitioner who has admitted that he had cultivatable land with his and also worked a private labourer. Thus, plea of having remained not gainfully employed gets belied admission of petitioner in cross-examination in which he had maintained that he had been earning from agricultural land as well as he has been working as daily wager privately. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. M. Nagangouda (2007) 10 SCC 765 in which Division Bench comprising of Justice A.R. Lakshmanan and Justice Altamas Kabir had held that 'term gainfully employment would also include self employment wherefrom income is generated. It was income either from employment in an establishment or from self employment merely differentiates the sources from which income is generated, the end use being the same'. Applying the ratio of judgment of 2007 (supra) to this case since the petitioner was earning from his agricultural and manual pursuits, the same were sufficient to maintain his and his family. It is thus held that petitioner was gainfully employed. Be it stated here that Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase's case has held that the Labour Court was not justified in holding that merely because the respondent was receiving agriculture income, he cannot be treated to be engaged in gainful employment. Since the petitioner had income from agriculture pursuits for his livelihood it cannot be stated that petitioner was not gainfully employed and thus would not be entitled full back wages. In view of the forgoing discussion, it is held that the relationship of workman and employer existed between petitioner and respondent and that petitioner was illegally retrenched without compliance of Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Act although remained gainfully employed after his retrenchment. Thus, applying the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court (2007 supra), it may not be erroneous to hold that petitioner was gainfully employed and thus would be not entitled for back wages for the period he was out of job on being terminated by the respondent.

18. Lastly, Ld. Dy. D.A. for State has contended with vehemence that there is inordinate and explained delay which disentitles petitieonr relief claimed for by him. On the other hand, ld. Authorized Representative for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014 Lab IC 4266 (SC) and the relevant paras of the judgment are produced below for reference:

"12. Therefore, in our considered view, the observations made by this Court in the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board case (supra) upon which the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana has placed reliance cannot be applied to the fact situation of the case on hand, for the reason that the Labour Court has erroneously rejected the reference without judiciously considering all the relevant factors of the case particularly the points of dispute referred to it and answered the2699 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 2nd issue regarding the reference being barred by limitation but not on the merits of the case. The said decision has no application to the fact situation and also for the reason the catena of decisions of this Court referred to supra, wherein this Court has categorically held that the provisions of Limitation Act under Article 137 has no application to make reference by the appropriate government to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of existing industrial dispute between workmen and the employer.

13. In the case on hand, no doubt there is a delay in raising the dispute by the appellant; the Labour Court nevertheless has the power to mould the relief accordingly. At the time of adjudication, if the dispute referred to the Labour Court is not adjudicated by it, it does not mean that the dispute ceases to exist. The appropriate government in exercise of its statutory power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act can refer the industrial dispute, between the parties, at any time, to either the jurisdictional Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal as interpreted by this Court in the Avon Services case referred to supra. Therefore, the State Government has rightly exercised its power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act and referred the points of dispute to the Labour Court as the same are in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Avon Services & Sapan Kumar Pandit cases referred to supra.

14. Further, the workman cannot be denied to seek relief only on the ground of delay in raising the dispute as held in the case of S.M. Nilajkar & Ors. v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka[4] it was held by this Court as follows—

"17. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that on account of delay in raising the dispute by the appellants the High Court was justified in denying relief to the appellants. We cannot agree...... In Ratan Chandra Sammanta and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra)1993 AIR SCW 2214, it was held that a casual labourer retrenched by the employer deprives himself of remedy available in law by delay itself, lapse of time results in losing the remedy and the right as well. The delay would certainly be fatal if it has resulted in material evidence relevant to adjudication being lost and rendered not available. However, we do not think that the delay in the case at hand has been so culpable as to disentitle the appellants for any relief....." (Emphasis laid by the Court) In view of the legal principles laid down by this Court in the above judgment, the reference of the industrial dispute made in the case on hand by the State Government to the Labour Court to adjudicate the existing industrial dispute between the parties was made within a reasonable time, considering the circumstances in which the workman was placed, firstly, as there was a criminal case pending against his and secondly, the respondent had assured the workman that he would be reinstated after his acquittal from the criminal case. Moreover, it is reasonable to adjudicate the industrial dispute in spite of the delay in raising and referring the matter, since there is no mention of any loss or unavailability of material evidence due to the delay. Thus, we do not consider the delay in raising the industrial dispute and referring the same to the Labour Court for adjudication as gravely erroneous and it does not debar the workman from claiming rightful relief from his employer.

15. In the case of Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum- Processing Service Society Limited & Anr.[5] this Court has opined that relief cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay, stating that:—

"10. It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if2700 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labour court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay in shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/ termination or dismissal. The Court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full back wages....." (Emphasis laid by the Court)

16. Hence, we are of the opinion, having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case that there is no delay or latches on the part of the workman from the date of his acquittal in the criminal case. Thereafter, upon failure of the respondent in adhering to the assurance given to the workman that he would be reinstated after his acquittal from the criminal case, the workman approached the conciliation officer and the State Government to make a reference to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute with regard to the order of dismissal passed by the respondent. Keeping in mind the date of acquittal of the appellant and the date on which he approached the conciliation officer by raising the dispute, since the respondent had not adhered to its assurance, the State Government had rightly referred the dispute for its adjudication. Therefore it cannot be said that there was a delay on the part of the appellant in raising the dispute and getting it referred to the Labour Court by the State Government.

17. Further, the Labour Court on an erroneous assumption of law framed the additional issue regarding the limitation in raising the dispute and its reference by the State Government to the Labour Court. Thus, the Labour Court has ignored the legal principles laid down by this Court in the cases referred to supra. The award passed by the Labour Court was accepted erroneously by both the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court by dismissing the Civil Writ Petition & the Letters Patent Appeal without examining the case in its proper perspective, keeping in view the power of the State Government under Section 10(1)(c) and the object and intendment of the Act. Not adjudicating the existing industrial dispute on merits between the parties referred to it may lead to disruption of industrial peace and harmony, which is the foremost important aspect in Industrial Jurisprudence as the same would affect the public interest at large.

19. Ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has also contended with vehemence that claim petition is barred by limitation on account of delay and laches. It has been pointed that termination of petitioner in this case took place on 2003 and the industrial dispute was raised after several years of retrenchment. Repudiating the argument by ld. counsel, ld. AR for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment reported in 2007 LHLJ 903 Hon'ble High Court of H.P. (Bhatag Ram's case) in which it has been held that delay in raising dispute may be considered by court at the time of granting final relief however in various other judgments even longer delay has been condoned. In Divisional Manager, HPFC & another vs. Garibu Ram, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 1160, delay of more than 10 years was condoned besides Hon'ble High Court has held that principle of Limitation Act is not applicable to the industrial dispute. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajayab Singh vs. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing- cum-Processing Society Limited and Another, (1999) 6 SCC 82 in which it has been held that the principle of Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply to the proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act.

20. Relying upon the aforestated judgment, it has been contended that claim of petitioner cannot be defeated on the point of delay and laches. Repudiating arguments2701 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 advanced by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub- Division Kota and Mohan Lal [2013 (139) FLR 125], the relevant para of the judgment are produced below for reference:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 25-F and 10- Limitation Act, 1963- Section 5- Industrial dispute- Termination of service-Finding of Lboaur Court that workman had completed 240 days in calander year and her termination was in violation o section 25-F of the I.D.Act- Wrokman worked from 1.11.1984 to 17.2.1986 in all 286 days during employment. her services terminated on 18.2.1986. Industrial dispute raised after 6 years of termination. Admitted delay of 6 years not kept in view by the Labour Court- Judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court flawed and unsustainable. Reinstatement of the workman not the appropriate relief. In lieu of reinstatement compensation of Rs.one lac directed to be paid to the workman by the appellant- employer within six weeks failing which interest @ workman 9% p.a. will be payable. [Paras 21 and 22] Limitation Act, 1963. Section 5- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Section 25-F- Termination of service- Industrial dispute raised after six years- Limitation Act not applicable to reference made under the I.D. Act-Delay in raising industrial disputes definitely an important circumstances which the Labour Court must keep in view before granting relief".

21. Repudiating the arguments by ld. Dy. D.A. for the State, ld. counsel for claimant/petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Tapash Kumar Paul vs. BSNL & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 357 wherein Hon'ble Court held that a Court may pass an order of reinstatement by awarding compensation but the same has to be based on justifiable grounds. In this judgment, it was held that compensation can be granted in a situation where the industry is closed or that employees has superannuated or going to retire shortly and no period is left to his credit or where workman has been rendered in capacitated to discharge duties cannot be reinstated and/or fourthly when he has lost confidence of the management to discharge duties. It was observed that there may be appropriate cases on facts which may justify substituting an order of reinstatement by award of compensation but that has to be supported by some legal and justifiable reasons indicating why the reinstatement should be followed to be substituted by award of compensation. Ld. counsel for the petitioner with the aid of above-said judgment had argued that there are only four situations when a worker may be awarded compensation instead of reinstatement but the judgment has certainly not been correctly appreciated by ld. counsel as this judgment postulates probable four situations which are illustrate in nature where compensation may be awarded instead of reinstatement but that does not mean that except the four grounds, no other ground would be appropriate for awarding compensation. In the case in hand before this court, it has come that petitioner had abandoned the job who did not report for duty for several years and later gave notice requesting for joining of duties but the conditions in para no.5 of judgment (2015 supra) even if not met requirement, cannot be a ground to reinstate the petitioner and it is only compensation which would be appropriate relief. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'be Apex Court titled as Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and Ors. reported in AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 121, Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014(3) Apex Court Judgments 652. I have gone through these judgments and of view that they don't come to rescue the petitioner on point of reinstatement instead of compensation. Ld. Dy. D.A. for State on the other hand has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh v. Akhilesh Kumar Khare & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 3473. It has been contended that engagement of claimant/petitioner in this 2702 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 case was not through regular mode of recruitment and applying the ratio of this judgment AIR 2015 SC supra, claim of petitioner for reinstatement can be negated and thus compensation would be sufficient for redressal of grievance of the claimant/petitioner. Similarly, in 2016 (1) Him. L.R. 502 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Chaman Singh relied by ld. AR for petitioner interpretation of Section 137 of Limitation Act was involved which provides that Article 137 of Limitation Act did not apply to industrial disputes. In 2014 (3) Apex Court Judgment 652 (SC) similar view was reiterated which clearly mandates that claimant/petitioner cannot be denied relief sought for merely on the ground of delay and laches. That being so, the law remains as it was that ground of delay and laches, claimant/petitioner cannot be denied relief rather the court has to consider various aspects before moulding relief and the case in hand it would not be erroneous to mention here that the claimant/petitioner can be reasonably indemnified by ordering compensation and not by reinstatement. In so far as judgment of AIR 2015 SC 1373 titled as Mackinon Machenize & Company Ltd. vs. Mackinon Employees Union is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held on closure of unit of company principle of 'Last come First go' was not followed which violated Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act and retrenchment was held illegal entitling petitioner for retrenchment compensation. Since the facts of case of Mackinon Machenize's case are different from case in hand as in former closure of unit of company was involved whereas in case in hand before this court, there is no closure of company rather it is the department of HPPWD which had engaged petitioner without following of the procedure although subject to funds and availability of work but in the case in hand petitioner had abandoned the job who never reported for duty. As such, when there is no closure of any unit by respondent which the petitioner was engaged, judgment of Mackinon Machenize cannot be made applicable.

22. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and case law relied by them, it can be safely concluded that delay in raising industrial dispute is certainly important aspect/circumstance which court has to keep in mind while exercising discretion. In para nos. 20 and 21 of the judgment as referred to in this case reported in 2013 (136) FLR 893 (SC) titled as Assistant Engineer Rajasthan Development Corporation and another vs. Geetam Singh provides that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court or Tribunal has to keep in mind all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment (2013 supra) before that workman had worked for 286 days and had raised industrial dispute in 1992 whereas her services have been terminated in 1986 and she raised industrial dispute after six years. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that though compensation awarded by Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court was too low and liable to be enhanced by the Division Bench but surely reinstatement of the workman in the facts and circumstances is not the appropriate relief and thus Hon'ble Apex Court awarded a lump-sum of Rs.1 lakh along-with interest @ 9% per annum if the respondent failed to make payment of compensation within six weeks from the date of judgment. In the case in hand before this court factors which have weighed are that the petitioner in all remained engaged for about 8 years and actually worked for 844 days as per mandays chart on record and that the services of petitioner were disengaged in October, 2003 who worked as non skilled worker and had raised industrial dispute by issuance of demand notice after about nine years i.e. demand notice was given on 14.5.2012. Taking into consideration factors mentioned above in pursuance to judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above, petitioner would not be entitled either for reinstatement or for back wages but a lump-sum compensation would be appropriate relief in view of judgment 2013 (139) FLR 25 (SC). The judgments relied upon by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner on the matter of delay and laches is more or less settled law that claim of the petitioner could not be solely declined on the ground of delay and laches. Similarly, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court2703 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 in 2014 titled as Raghubir Singh's case also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner as in this judgment also the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the mandate as given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in previous judgment in the year 2013 i.e. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division Kota and Mohan Lal's case. I have gone through these judgments which are not attracted in this present case as this court not declining relief to the petitioner on the ground of limitation rather on the basis of guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court laid down in judgment of 2013.

23. In view of foregoing discussion, a lump-sum compensation of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) would be appropriate relief to which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above. It is further made clear that amount of compensation shall be paid within four months from the date of Award failing which the petitioner would be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from date of Award till its realization. Issues no. 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.4

24. On the plea of non-maintainability of the claim petition under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has failed to allege in reply in what manner petition is not maintainable. Thus, vague plea merits rejection outright. Otherwise also, from pleadings and evidence on record, no inference of claim petition being not maintainable could be raised against claimant/petitioner. This issue is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondent.

RELIEF

25. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, the respondent is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) to the petitioner in lieu of the reinstatement in services as well as the other consequential service benefits. Amount of compensation so awarded will be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within four months from today failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay the interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of award till the date of its realization. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

26. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

27. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette.

28. File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room. Announced in the open Court today this 5th day of May, 2016.

(K. K. Sharma) Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal,

Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA (HP)

Ref. No. : 401/2015

Date of Institution : 10.09.2015

Date of Decision : 05.05.2016

Shri Satish Kumar s/o Shri Lal Chand, r/o Village and P.O. Dharwas, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. ….Petitioner.

Versus

Executive Engineer, Killar Division, I&PH/HPPWD Division Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District ....Respondent. Chamba, H.P.

Reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. O.P. Bhardwaj, Adv.

For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A.

AWARD

The reference given below has been received from the appropriate Government for adjudication:

"Whether the industrial dispute raised by the worker Shri Satish Kumar S/O Shri Lal Chand, R/O Village and Post Office Dharwas, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. before the Executive Engineer, I&PH/HPPWD Division, Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. vide demand notice dated 19.12.2011 regarding his alleged illegal termination of service during October, 1997 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Shri Satish Kumar S/O Shri Lal Chand, R/O Village and Post Office Dharwas, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, I&PH/HPPWD Division, Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. during October, 1997 without complying 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 aggrieved workman is entitled to from the above employer?" 2. On receipt of reference from appropriate government, notices were issued to the parties in pursuance to which claimant/petitioner has filed statement of claim.

3. Brief facts as enumerated in the present claim petition by the petitioner above named reveal that he had been initially engaged as daily waged beldar on muster roll basis in the year 1994 who continuously worked till October, 2004 with the respondent. Averments made in the petition further revealed that petitioner had worked for 160 days in each calendar year as the criteria prescribed for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil District Chamba and became eligible for continuous service envisaged under statutory provisions of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity). Averments made in the petition revealed that the services of petitioner had interrupted by way of intermittent/artificial breaks given by the respondent/department deliberately and as such breaks are required to2705 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 be counted as continuous services for the purposes of calculation of 160 days so as for the applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. The grievance of petitioner remains that respondent/department had terminated/disengaged petitioner from daily wage service orally without issuing any one month notice in writing indicating the reason for retrenchment besides no retrenchment compensation was paid to petitioner while respondent had illegally terminated his service. It is contended that respondent had not followed the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act while disengaging the services of petitioner. It is stated that petitioner is very poor and no source of income besides after termination of the services of petitioner, he had approached the respondent time and again but of no avail. Grievance of petitioner further remains that when the services of petitioner have been terminated, respondent/department had reengaged number of new workman from time to time and respondent had not followed the principle of 'Last come, First go' as envisaged under Section 25-G of the Act. It is further alleged that respondent/department had continuously retained junior to petitioner and who are still in service with the respondent namely Raj Kumar who appointed in 1996, Hukam Chand in 1997, Suraj Ram in 1997, Chunku Ram in 2000, Budhi Ram in 2003 and Dev Raj in 2004. The claimant/petitioner claimed that he had spotless service record who never been charge-sheeted for any act of indiscipline or negligence or his conduct and even at the time of verbal termination, no charge-sheet had been served upon his and the at the same time, no opportunity of hearing had been afforded to him. The petitioner also alleges that he has remained unemployed ever since his illegal termination from month of October, 2004 till the date of institution of present claim petition who had been nowhere gainfully employed and was thus entitled for full back wages. Accordingly alleging respondent to have committed violation of statutory provision of Section 25-F, Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for setting aside oral order of termination/retrenchment by the respondent in the month of October, 2004. He further prayed for reinstatement in service w.e.f. month of October, 2004 along-with back wages, seniority including continuity in service as petitioner has remained unemployed since the date of his illegal termination. The petitioner has also prayed that period of intermittent/fictional breaks given time and again during entire service of petitioner between 1994 to October, 2004 be counted 160 days continuous service and regularization of the service of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2002 having completed 8 years of service and per the policy of HP Govt. in pursuance to law settled by Hon'ble High Court of H.P. and to any other relief petitioner is entitled.

4. The respondent contested claim petition, filed reply inter-alia taken preliminary objections of maintainability, claim petition being bad on account of delay and laches. On merits denied that petitioner had worked for more than 160 days in each calendar year rather clarified by stating that petitioner was engaged as daily waged beldar in 1994 who remained engaged till 1997 but had worked intermittently as petitioner used to come and attend the work at his own sweet will and convenience. Relying upon the mandays chart, it has been categorically pleaded by the respondent that petitioner had not completed 160 days in each calendar year as required for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil. Allegations of fictional breaks given by respondent to the petitioner have been denied. In so far as engagement of persons junior to petitioner mentioned in para no. 10 of the claim petition were appointed as per order of Labour Court and no other juniors to the petitioner had been retained in service by the respondent. On the plea of termination of service of petitioner, respondent specifically alleges that petitioner had left the job at his own will therefore serving of notice or pay in lieu thereof was not required. Reiterating its stand respondent has maintained that petitioner had left the work of his own sweet will and the persons mentioned in para no.10 are stated to have engaged as per direction of the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal Dharamshala and respondent had not violated the principle of 'Last come, First go'. It is also contended that if petitioner had been terminated in 1997 he would have definitely raised industrial dispute immediately and that after seven years petitioner is stated to be agitating the matter which is bad on account of delay 2706 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 and laches. It is also contended that since the services of petitioner had not been terminated by the respondent, question of issuance of notice or wages in lieu thereof did not arise and at the same time, there was no necessity for charge-sheet or issuing any notice of petitioner after his termination. It is contended that petitioner was agriculturist and gainfully employed and was thus not entitled for back wages.

5. The petitioner filed rejoinder, reiterated his stand as maintained in the claim petition. Further asserted that provisions of Limitation Act did not eclipse the claim of petitioner in totality besides allegation of violation of principle of 'Last come First go' was specifically denied.

6. In order to prove his case, petitioner had examined himself as PW1 tendered/proved his affidavit Ex. PW1/A under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC and closed evidence. On the other hand, repudiating the evidence led by the petitioner, respondent examined RW1 Shri Bal Krishan Kapil, the then Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Killar as RW1 tendered/proved mandays chart of petitioner Ex. RW1/B, Ex. RW1/C copy of mandays chart of co-workers, Ex. RW1/C1 to Ex. RW1/C5 copy of orders/awards and closed the evidence.

7. I have heard the ld. counsel of petitioner and ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent, gone through records of the case carefully relevant for disposed of this case.

8. From the contentions raised, following issues were framed on 27.11.2015 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated 19.12.2011 qua his termination of service during October, 1997 by respondent suffers from the vice of delay and laches as alleged? If so, its effect? …OPP.

2. Whether termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent during October, 1997 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged? … OPP.

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

4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? OPP.

Relief.

9. For the reasons detailed here under, my findings on the above issues are as follows:—

Issue No.1 : Yes

Issue No.2 : Yes

Issue No.3 : Discussed

Issue No.4 : No

Relief. : Petition is partly allowed awarding compensation Rs.60,000/- per operative part of award.

ISSUES NO. 1 TO 3

10. All these issues have been taken up together for discussion being interconnected which can be disposed of simultaneously without repetition of evidence.

11. Relationship of petitioner having been engaged as daily waged beldar by respondent on muster roll basis in the year 1994 continuously worked till October, 1997 with the respondent is not in dispute. Admittedly, petitioner was engaged without any written order or settlement of terms and conditions by the respondent. It is equally not in dispute that no written order was passed while terminating service of the petitioner as claim of respondent remains that it had not retrenched petitioner from service who had abandoned the job of his own and used to work intermittently as per his own wish and convenience. Admittedly, the reference of appropriate govt. does not relate to plea of fictional breaks but only with regard to petitioner's termination from service. In the backdrop of foregoing admitted facts on record, claim of petitioner requires to be adjudicated with a view to determine if petitioner is entitled for relief of reinstatement and back wages along-with seniority and past service benefits and compensation as claimed by him.

12. Stepping into witness box as PW1 has sworn in affidavit Ex. PW1/A reiterating and reaffirming his pleadings as stipulated in claim petition. In his affidavit he has claimed to have worked with the respondent/department for more than 160 days in Pangi Sub Division Chamba District and remained engaged from 1994 to October, 2004. He has also stated on oath that no notice under Section 25- F of the Act was given by the respondent before terminating his service and at the same time no compensation in lieu thereof notice period was paid to his and thus his termination was illegal and void entitling petitioner benefit of reinstatement of service with full back wages and all the other consequential service benefits. The petitioner has further alleged on oath that respondent/department after terminating his services in October, 2004 by oral order had engaged several co-workers who were junior to petitioner were retained in service. Not only this, the persons who were junior to petitioner are stated to have been regularized in service and thus respondent had not followed the mandate of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act which was obligatory on its part. The case of petitioner also remains that he had served respondent with due diligence and had spotless service record as respondent/department had never called any explanation or raised charge-sheet against his but even while retrenching petitioner from service, no notice was given. The petitioner has also explained reason for not approaching the authorities under Labour Act and thereafter before this Tribunal, as there existed no road between Chamba town to Pangi Tehsil till 2011 and petitioner had moved before the Labour Officer raising demand notice consequent upon which a failure report was submitted and as the Labour Commissioner did not make reference for industrial dispute raised by petitioner, the petitioner had moved before the Hon'ble High Court by filing CWP where direction was passed for making reference to the Labour Court due to which delay had occurred and same was satisfactorily explained.

13. In so far as plea of abandonment raised by respondent is concerned, the same merits rejection in view of the fact that respondent had failed to produce any record by which it could be established that whenever petitioner absented from his duty as also reflected in mandays chart Ex. RW1/B any notice or letter was ever issued. On this point respondent as RW1 has specifically admitted that whenever petitioner abandoned the job, no notice had been issued. RW1 specifically admitted that no departmental inquiry was initiated against petitioner even after October, 2004. No reason whatsoever has been assigned for such any action or omission on the part of respondent in not initiating any departmental proceedings or making 2708 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 correspondence calling upon the petitioner to join service. This prima facie belies the stand taken by the respondent as abandonment has to be proved like any other fact in issue. The petitioner, on the other hand, as PW1 in cross-examination has specifically denied that he used to leave the job in between and attended the work intermittently rather he has claimed that intermit breaks had been deliberately given to his by the respondent in the service record of petitioner so that petitioner did not complete 160 days of work as required for Pangi Tehsil area and also for applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. As such, in absence of any specific and reliable evidence led by respondent, it would be unsafe to hold that respondent had established plea of abandonment.

14. A bare glance on the mandays chart Ex. RW1/B would reveal that petitioner had worked for 164 days in the year 1994, 176 days in 1995, 134 days in 1996 and 112 days in 1997 and thus a total of his service in 1994 to 1997 in 4 years he had worked for 586 days in his entire service period. Be it noticed that petitioner had not worked for more than 160 days and as there is no reference from the Labour Commissioner, Shimla on the point of artificial breaks, this court is to confine its findings only with regard to alleged illegal termination. It is evident from mandays chart Ex. RW1/B that in the year 1997 the petitioner had merely worked for 112 days and thus immediately in preceding 12 calendar months from the month of termination of petitioner had not rendered service of 160 days so as to meet requirement of law of having continuous service of one year and thus it was not at all required from respondent to have issued a notice envisaged under Section 25-F of the Act. As such, the respondent is held to have not violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

15. Ld. counsel for petitioner has contended with vehemence that large number of workers who were junior to petitioner had been appointed and these workers have been retained in service and regularized. The grievance of petitioner remains that principle of 'Last come First go' was not followed as the juniors were retained and services of petitioner despite being senior was terminated without any valid reason. Ex. RW1/C is the year-wise mandays of daily waged workers who were junior to the petitioner and had joined in the year 1996 or thereafter. All of these co-workers shown in Ex. RW1/C the year-wise mandays details of workers of Division HPPWD Killar were certainly junior to petitioner who were given sufficient work existing in those years more than 200 days in a year whereas the petitioner had been not given muster roll for the whole month. Ex. RW1/C also established that all the co- workers shown in this document have worked for more than 160 days in most of the years although they were junior to petitioner. Evidently, there is no iota of evidence of respondent establishing that petitioner was called upon to join for service at any time after October, 1997 even at the time when junior persons were reengaged. That being so the respondent had certainly violated the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act as the juniors workers mentioned in para no.10 of the affidavit were retained whereas petitioner was senior from these co-workers having joined service in 1996 was terminated and even thereafter respondent omitted to afford opportunity to petitioner for reemployment for work which also violates the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of Central Bank of India vs. S. Satyam, 1996 (5) SCC 419 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for the applicability of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act, there was no necessity of claimant/petitioner to have worked for 240 days as in case of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

16. Repudiating claim of petitioner, the respondent, on the other hand, has made futile attempt to justify engagement of junior workers and their retention in service on the basis of orders of Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Court of H.P. as reflected in Ex. RW1/C1 to Ex RW1/C5. These judgments/orders have been gone through which revealed that respondent had wrongly terminated the services of those claimant/petitioner2709 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 and for said reasons they were directed to be reinstated. Thus, plea that persons were directed to be appointed in pursuance to awards/orders Ext. Rw1/C1 to Ex. RW1/C5 were primarily on the basis of court orders would not defeat the claim of the petitioner as status of these person being junior to petitioner does not get negatived. As such, even when petitioner is proved to have not worked for more than 160 days in preceding 8 years which entitled his for regularization of his service per government policy, yet respondent is not absolved from its accountability of provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act and as such it is held that respondent had violated the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. 17. Ld. counsel for petitioner has contended that after petitioner's termination in October, 1997, he had remained unemployed and was not earning anything thereafter as such was entitled for full back wages. Repudiating the arguments of ld. Authorized Representative of petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. for the State has taken this court through cross-examination of the petitioner who has admitted that he had cultivatable land with his and also worked a private labourer. Thus, plea of having remained not gainfully employed gets belied admission of petitioner in cross-examination in which he had maintained that he had been earning from agricultural land as well as he has been working as daily wager privately. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. M. Nagangouda (2007) 10 SCC 765 in which Division Bench comprising of Justice A.R. Lakshmanan and Justice Altamas Kabir had held that 'term gainfully employment would also include self employment wherefrom income is generated. It was income either from employment in an establishment or from self employment merely differentiates the sources from which income is generated, the end use being the same'. Applying the ratio of judgment of 2007 (supra) to this case since the petitioner was earning from his agricultural and manual pursuits, the same were sufficient to maintain his and his family. It is thus held that petitioner was gainfully employed. Be it stated here that Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase's case has held that the Labour Court was not justified in holding that merely because the respondent was receiving agriculture income, he cannot be treated to be engaged in gainful employment. Since the petitioner had income from agriculture pursuits for his livelihood it cannot be stated that petitioner was not gainfully employed and thus would not be entitled full back wages. In view of the forgoing discussion, it is held that the relationship of workman and employer existed between petitioner and respondent and that petitioner was illegally retrenched without compliance of Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Act although remained gainfully employed after his retrenchment. Thus, applying the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court (2007 supra), it may not be erroneous to hold that petitioner was gainfully employed and thus would be not entitled for back wages for the period he was out of job on being terminated by the respondent.

18. Lastly, Ld. Dy. D.A. for State has contended with vehemence that there is inordinate and explained delay which disentitles petitieonr relief claimed for by him. On the other hand, ld. Authorized Representative for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014 Lab IC 4266 (SC) and the relevant paras of the judgment are produced below for reference:

"12. Therefore, in our considered view, the observations made by this Court in the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board case (supra) upon which the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana has placed reliance cannot be applied to the fact situation of the case on hand, for the reason that the Labour Court has erroneously rejected the reference without judiciously considering all the relevant factors of the case particularly the points of dispute referred to it and answered the 2nd issue regarding the reference being barred by limitation but not on the merits of the2710 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 case. The said decision has no application to the fact situation and also for the reason the catena of decisions of this Court referred to supra, wherein this Court has categorically held that the provisions of Limitation Act under Article 137 has no application to make reference by the appropriate government to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of existing industrial dispute between workmen and the employer.

13. In the case on hand, no doubt there is a delay in raising the dispute by the appellant; the Labour Court nevertheless has the power to mould the relief accordingly. At the time of adjudication, if the dispute referred to the Labour Court is not adjudicated by it, it does not mean that the dispute ceases to exist. The appropriate government in exercise of its statutory power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act can refer the industrial dispute, between the parties, at any time, to either the jurisdictional Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal as interpreted by this Court in the Avon Services case referred to supra. Therefore, the State Government has rightly exercised its power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act and referred the points of dispute to the Labour Court as the same are in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Avon Services & Sapan Kumar Pandit cases referred to supra.

14. Further, the workman cannot be denied to seek relief only on the ground of delay in raising the dispute as held in the case of S.M. Nilajkar & Ors. v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka[4] it was held by this Court as follows—

"17. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that on account of delay in raising the dispute by the appellants the High Court was justified in denying relief to the appellants. We cannot agree...... In Ratan Chandra Sammanta and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra)1993 AIR SCW 2214, it was held that a casual labourer retrenched by the employer deprives himself of remedy available in law by delay itself, lapse of time results in losing the remedy and the right as well. The delay would certainly be fatal if it has resulted in material evidence relevant to adjudication being lost and rendered not available. However, we do not think that the delay in the case at hand has been so culpable as to disentitle the appellants for any relief....." (Emphasis laid by the Court) In view of the legal principles laid down by this Court in the above judgment, the reference of the industrial dispute made in the case on hand by the State Government to the Labour Court to adjudicate the existing industrial dispute between the parties was made within a reasonable time, considering the circumstances in which the workman was placed, firstly, as there was a criminal case pending against his and secondly, the respondent had assured the workman that he would be reinstated after his acquittal from the criminal case. Moreover, it is reasonable to adjudicate the industrial dispute in spite of the delay in raising and referring the matter, since there is no mention of any loss or unavailability of material evidence due to the delay. Thus, we do not consider the delay in raising the industrial dispute and referring the same to the Labour Court for adjudication as gravely erroneous and it does not debar the workman from claiming rightful relief from his employer.

15. In the case of Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum- Processing Service Society Limited & Anr.[5] this Court has opined that relief cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay, stating that:-

"10. It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real2711 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labour court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay in shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/ termination or dismissal. The Court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full back wages....." (Emphasis laid by the Court)

16. Hence, we are of the opinion, having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case that there is no delay or latches on the part of the workman from the date of his acquittal in the criminal case. Thereafter, upon failure of the respondent in adhering to the assurance given to the workman that he would be reinstated after his acquittal from the criminal case, the workman approached the conciliation officer and the State Government to make a reference to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute with regard to the order of dismissal passed by the respondent. Keeping in mind the date of acquittal of the appellant and the date on which he approached the conciliation officer by raising the dispute, since the respondent had not adhered to its assurance, the State Government had rightly referred the dispute for its adjudication. Therefore it cannot be said that there was a delay on the part of the appellant in raising the dispute and getting it referred to the Labour Court by the State Government.

17. Further, the Labour Court on an erroneous assumption of law framed the additional issue regarding the limitation in raising the dispute and its reference by the State Government to the Labour Court. Thus, the Labour Court has ignored the legal principles laid down by this Court in the cases referred to supra. The award passed by the Labour Court was accepted erroneously by both the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court by dismissing the Civil Writ Petition & the Letters Patent Appeal without examining the case in its proper perspective, keeping in view the power of the State Government under Section 10(1)(c) and the object and intendment of the Act. Not adjudicating the existing industrial dispute on merits between the parties referred to it may lead to disruption of industrial peace and harmony, which is the foremost important aspect in Industrial Jurisprudence as the same would affect the public interest at large.

19. Ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has also contended with vehemence that claim petition is barred by limitation on account of delay and laches. It has been pointed that termination of petitioner in this case took place on 1997 and the industrial dispute was raised after several years of retrenchment. Repudiating the argument by ld. counsel, ld. AR for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment reported in 2007 LHLJ 903 Hon'ble High Court of H.P. (Bhatag Ram's case) in which it has been held that delay in raising dispute may be considered by court at the time of granting final relief however in various other judgments even longer delay has been condoned. In Divisional Manager, HPFC & another vs. Garibu Ram, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 1160, delay of more than 10 years was condoned besides Hon'ble High Court has held that principle of Limitation Act is not applicable to the industrial dispute. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajayab Singh vs. Sirhind Co- operative Marketing- cum-Processing Society Limited and Another, (1999) 6 SCC 82 in which it has been held that the principle of Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply to the proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act.

20. Relying upon the aforestated judgment, it has been contended that claim of petitioner cannot be defeated on the point of delay and laches. Repudiating arguments advanced by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. has placed reliance upon 2712 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub- Division Kota and Mohan Lal [2013 (139) FLR 125], the relevant para of the judgment are produced below for reference:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 25-F and 10- Limitation Act, 1963-Section 5- Industrial dispute- Termination of service-Finding of Lboaur Court that workman had completed 240 days in calander year and her termination was in violation o section 25-F of the I.D.Act- Wrokman worked from 1.11.1984 to 17.2.1986 in all 286 days during employment. her services terminated on 18.2.1986. Industrial dispute raised after 6 years of termination. Admitted delay of 6 years not kept in view by the Labour Court- Judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court flawed and unsustainable. Reinstatement of the workman not the appropriate relief. In lieu of reinstatement compensation of Rs.one lac directed to be paid to the workman by the appellant- employer within six weeks failing which interest @ workman 9% p.a. will be payable. [Paras 21 and 22] Limitation Act, 1963. Section 5- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Section 25-F- Termination of service- Industrial dispute raised after six years- Limitation Act not applicable to reference made under the I.D. Act-Delay in raising industrial disputes definitely an important circumstances which the Labour Court must keep in view before granting relief".

21. Repudiating the arguments by ld. Dy. D.A. for the State, ld. counsel for claimant/petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Tapash Kumar Paul vs. BSNL & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 357 wherein Hon'ble Court held that a Court may pass an order of reinstatement by awarding compensation but the same has to be based on justifiable grounds. In this judgment, it was held that compensation can be granted in a situation where the industry is closed or that employees has superannuated or going to retire shortly and no period is left to his credit or where workman has been rendered in capacitated to discharge duties cannot be reinstated and/or fourthly when he has lost confidence of the management to discharge duties. It was observed that there may be appropriate cases on facts which may justify substituting an order of reinstatement by award of compensation but that has to be supported by some legal and justifiable reasons indicating why the reinstatement should be followed to be substituted by award of compensation. Ld. counsel for the petitioner with the aid of above-said judgment had argued that there are only four situations when a worker may be awarded compensation instead of reinstatement but the judgment has certainly not been correctly appreciated by ld. counsel as this judgment postulates probable four situations which are illustrate in nature where compensation may be awarded instead of reinstatement but that does not mean that except the four grounds, no other ground would be appropriate for awarding compensation. In the case in hand before this court, it has come that petitioner had abandoned the job who did not report for duty for several years and later gave notice requesting for joining of duties but the conditions in para no.5 of judgment (2015 supra) even if not met requirement, cannot be a ground to reinstate the petitioner and it is only compensation which would be appropriate relief. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'be Apex Court titled as Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and Ors. reported in AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 121, Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014(3) Apex Court Judgments 652. I have gone through these judgments and of view that they don't come to rescue the petitioner on point of reinstatement instead of compensation. Ld. Dy. D.A. for State on the other hand has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh v. Akhilesh Kumar Khare & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 3473. It has been contended that engagement of claimant/petitioner in this case was not through regular mode of recruitment and applying the ratio of this judgment AIR2713 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 2015 SC supra, claim of petitioner for reinstatement can be negated and thus compensation would be sufficient for redressal of grievance of the claimant/petitioner. Similarly, in 2016 (1) Him. L.R. 502 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Chaman Singh relied by ld. AR for petitioner interpretation of Section 137 of Limitation Act was involved which provides that Article 137 of Limitation Act did not apply to industrial disputes. In 2014 (3) Apex Court Judgment 652 (SC) similar view was reiterated which clearly mandates that claimant/petitioner cannot be denied relief sought for merely on the ground of delay and laches. That being so, the law remains as it was that ground of delay and laches, claimant/petitioner cannot be denied relief rather the court has to consider various aspects before moulding relief and the case in hand it would not be erroneous to mention here that the claimant/petitioner can be reasonably indemnified by ordering compensation and not by reinstatement. In so far as judgment of AIR 2015 SC 1373 titled as Mackinon Machenize & Company Ltd. vs. Mackinon Employees Union is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held on closure of unit of company principle of 'Last come First go' was not followed which violated Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act and retrenchment was held illegal entitling petitioner for retrenchment compensation. Since the facts of case of Mackinon Machenize's case are different from case in hand as in former closure of unit of company was involved whereas in case in hand before this court, there is no closure of company rather it is the department of HPPWD which had engaged petitioner without following of the procedure although subject to funds and availability of work but in the case in hand petitioner had abandoned the job who never reported for duty. As such, when there is no closure of any unit by respondent which the petitioner was engaged, judgment of Mackinon Machenize cannot be made applicable.

22. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and case law relied by them, it can be safely concluded that delay in raising industrial dispute is certainly important aspect/circumstance which court has to keep in mind while exercising discretion. In para nos. 20 and 21 of the judgment as referred to in this case reported in 2013 (136) FLR 893 (SC) titled as Assistant Engineer Rajasthan Development Corporation and another vs. Geetam Singh provides that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court or Tribunal has to keep in mind all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment (2013 supra) before that workman had worked for 286 days and had raised industrial dispute in 1992 whereas her services have been terminated in 1986 and she raised industrial dispute after six years. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that though compensation awarded by Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court was too low and liable to be enhanced by the Division Bench but surely reinstatement of the workman in the facts and circumstances is not the appropriate relief and thus Hon'ble Apex Court awarded a lump-sum of Rs.1 lakh along-with interest @ 9% per annum if the respondent failed to make payment of compensation within six weeks from the date of judgment. In the case in hand before this court factors which have weighed are that the petitioner in all remained engaged for about 4 years and actually worked for 586 days as per mandays chart on record and that the services of petitioner were disengaged in October, 1997 who worked as non skilled worker and had raised industrial dispute by issuance of demand notice after about nine years i.e. demand notice was given on 19.12.2011. Taking into consideration factors mentioned above in pursuance to judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above, petitioner would not be entitled either for reinstatement or for back wages but a lump-sum compensation would be appropriate relief in view of judgment 2013 (139) FLR 25 (SC). The judgments relied upon by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner on the matter of delay and laches is more or less settled law that claim of the petitioner could not be solely declined on the ground of delay and laches. Similarly, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in 2014 titled as Raghubir Singh's case also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner as in this judgment also the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the mandate as given by the Hon'ble 2714 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 Apex Court in previous judgment in the year 2013 i.e. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division Kota and Mohan Lal's case. I have gone through these judgments which are not attracted in this present case as this court not declining relief to the petitioner on the ground of limitation rather on the basis of guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court laid down in judgment of 2013.

23. In view of foregoing discussion, a lump-sum compensation of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) would be appropriate relief to which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above. It is further made clear that amount of compensation shall be paid within four months from the date of Award failing which the petitioner would be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from date of Award till its realization. Issues no. 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.4

24. On the plea of non-maintainability of the claim petition under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has failed to allege in reply in what manner petition is not maintainable. Thus, vague plea merits rejection outright. Otherwise also, from pleadings and evidence on record, no inference of claim petition being not maintainable could be raised against claimant/petitioner. This issue is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondent.

RELIEF

25. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, the respondent is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) to the petitioner in lieu of the reinstatement in services as well as the other consequential service benefits. Amount of compensation so awarded will be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within four months from today failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay the interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of award till the date of its realization. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

26. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

27. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette.

28. File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room. Announced in the open Court today this 5th day of May, 2016.

(K. K. Sharma) Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal,

Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

_________

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA (HP)

Ref. No. : 276/2015

Date of Institution : 13.07.2015

Date of Decision : 05.05.2016

Smt Thuli Devi w/o Shri Bhag Singh, r/o Village Shour, P.O. Purthi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. ….Petitioner.

Executive Engineer, Killar Division, I.&P.H./H.P.P.W.D. Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District ....Respondent. Chamba, H.P.

Reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. O.P. Bhardwaj, Adv.

For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A.

AWARD

The reference given below has been received from the appropriate Government for adjudication:

"Whether the industrial dispute raised by the worker Smt. Thuli Devi W/O Shri Bhag Singh, R/O Village Shour, P.O. Purthi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. before the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, I.&P.H./H.P.P.W.D. Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. vide demand notice dated 28.02.2012 regarding her alleged illegal termination of service during August, 2004 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Smt. Thuli Devi W/O Shri Bhag Singh, R/O Village Shour, P.O. Purthi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, I.&P.H./H.P.P.W.D. Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. during August, 2004 without complying 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 aggrieved workman is entitled to from the above employer?"

2. On receipt of reference from appropriate government, notices were issued to the parties in pursuance to which claimant/petitioner has filed statement of claim.

3. Brief facts as enumerated in the present claim petition by the petitioner above named reveal that she had been initially engaged as daily waged beldar on muster roll basis in the year 1996 who continuously worked till October, 2005 with the respondent. Averments made in the petition further revealed that petitioner had worked for 160 days in each calendar year as the criteria prescribed for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil District Chamba and became eligible for continuous service envisaged under statutory provisions of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity). Averments made in the petition revealed that the services of petitioner had interrupted by way of intermittent/artificial breaks given by the respondent/department deliberately and as such breaks are required to be counted as continuous services for the purposes of calculation of 160 days so as for the applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. The grievance of petitioner remains that respondent/department had terminated/disengaged petitioner from daily wage service orally without issuing any one month notice in writing indicating the reason for retrenchment besides no retrenchment compensation was paid to petitioner while respondent had illegally terminated her service. It is contended that respondent had not followed the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act while disengaging the services of petitioner. It is stated that petitioner is very poor and no source of income besides after termination of the services of petitioner, she had approached the respondent time and again but of no avail. Grievance of petitioner further remains that when the services of petitioner have been terminated, respondent/department had reengaged number of new workman from time to time and respondent had not followed the principle of 2716 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 'Last come, First go' as envisaged under Section 25-G of the Act. It is further alleged that respondent/department had continuously retained junior to petitioner and who are still in service with the respondent namely Suraj Ram who appointed in 1997, Karam Dev in 1997, Bhag Singh in 2000, Ram Dei in 2003, Dev Raj in 2004, Bameshwar Dutt in 2011 and Raj Kumar in 2011. The claimant/petitioner claimed that she had spotless service record who never been charge-sheeted for any act of indiscipline or negligence or her conduct and even at the time of verbal termination, no charge-sheet had been served upon her and the at the same time, no opportunity of hearing had been afforded to him. The petitioner also alleges that she has remained unemployed ever since her illegal termination from month of October, 2005 till the date of institution of present claim petition who had been nowhere gainfully employed and was thus entitled for full back wages. Accordingly alleging respondent to have committed violation of statutory provision of Section 25-F, Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for setting aside oral order of termination/retrenchment by the respondent in the month of October, 2005. She further prayed for reinstatement in service w.e.f. month of October, 2005 along-with back wages, seniority including continuity in service as petitioner has remained unemployed since the date of her illegal termination. The petitioner has also prayed that period of intermittent/fictional breaks given time and again during entire service of petitioner between 1996 to October, 2005 be counted 160 days continuous service and regularization of the service of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2004 having completed 8 years of service and per the policy of HP Govt. in pursuance to law settled by Hon'ble High Court of H.P. and to any other relief petitioner is entitled.

4. The respondent contested claim petition, filed reply inter-alia taken preliminary objections of maintainability, claim petition being bad on account of delay and laches. On merits denied that petitioner had worked for more than 160 days in each calendar year rather clarified by stating that petitioner was engaged as daily waged beldar in 1996 who remained engaged till 2004 but had worked intermittently as petitioner used to come and attend the work at her own sweet will and convenience. Relying upon the mandays chart, it has been categorically pleaded by the respondent that petitioner had not completed 160 days in each calendar year as required for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil. Allegations of fictional breaks given by respondent to the petitioner have been denied. In so far as engagement of persons junior to petitioner mentioned in para no. 10 of the claim petition were appointed as per order of Labour Court and no other juniors to the petitioner had been retained in service by the respondent. On the plea of termination of service of petitioner, respondent specifically alleges that petitioner had left the job at her own will therefore serving of notice or pay in lieu thereof was not required. Reiterating its stand respondent has maintained that petitioner had left the work of her own sweet will and the persons mentioned in para no.10 are stated to have engaged as per direction of the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal Dharamshala and respondent had not violated the principle of 'Last come, First go'. It is also contended that if petitioner had been terminated in 2004 she would have definitely raised industrial dispute immediately and that after seven years petitioner is stated to be agitating the matter which is bad on account of delay and laches. It is also contended that since the services of petitioner had not been terminated by the respondent, question of issuance of notice or wages in lieu thereof did not arise and at the same time, there was no necessity for charge-sheet or issuing any notice of petitioner after her termination. It is contended that petitioner was agriculturist and gainfully employed and was thus not entitled for back wages.

5. The petitioner filed rejoinder, reiterated her stand as maintained in the claim petition. Further asserted that provisions of Limitation Act did not eclipse the claim of petitioner in totality besides allegation of violation of principle of 'Last come First go' was specifically denied.

6. In order to prove her case, petitioner had examined herself as PW1 tendered/proved her affidavit Ex. PW1/A under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, copy of demand notice Ex. PW1/B, copy of reply dated 16.07.2013 Ex. PW1/C, copy of report under Section 12(4) I.D. Act Ex. PW1/D, copy of order dated 30.5.2015 Ex. PW1/E, copy of order dated 28.2.2011 Ex. PW1/F and Ex. PW1/G mandays chart and closed evidence. On the other hand, repudiating the evidence led by the petitioner, respondent examined RW1 Shri Bal Krishan Kapil, the then Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Killar as RW1 tendered/proved mandays chart of petitioner Ex. RW1/B, Ex. RW1/C copy of mandays chart of co-workers, Ex. RW1/C1 to Ex. RW1/C7 copy of orders/awards and closed the evidence.

7. I have heard the ld. counsel of petitioner and ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent, gone through records of the case carefully relevant for disposed of this case.

8. From the contentions raised, following issues were framed on 27.11.2015 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated 28.2.2012 qua her termination of service during August, 2004 by respondent suffers from the vice of delay and laches as alleged? If so, its effect? …OPP.

2. Whether termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent during August, 2004 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged? …OPP 3. If issue no. 2 is proved in affirmative, to what service benefits the petitioner is …OPP.

entitled to?

4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged?

…OPR.

Relief.

9. For the reasons detailed here under, my findings on the above issues are as follows:—

Issue No.1 : Yes

Issue No.2 : Yes

Issue No.3 : Discussed

Issue No.4 : No

Relief. : Petition is partly allowed awarding compensation Rs.1,00,000/- per operative part of award.

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

ISSUES NO.1 TO 3

10. All these issues have been taken up together for discussion being interconnected which can be disposed of simultaneously without repetition of evidence.

11. Relationship of petitioner having been engaged as daily waged beldar by respondent on muster roll basis in the year 1996 continuously worked till October, 2004 with the respondent is not in dispute. Admittedly, petitioner was engaged without any written order or 2718 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 settlement of terms and conditions by the respondent. It is equally not in dispute that no written order was passed while terminating service of the petitioner as claim of respondent remains that it had not retrenched petitioner from service who had abandoned the job of her own and used to work intermittently as per her own wish and convenience. Admittedly, the reference of appropriate govt. does not relate to plea of fictional breaks but only with regard to petitioner's termination from service. In the backdrop of foregoing admitted facts on record, claim of petitioner requires to be adjudicated with a view to determine if petitioner is entitled for relief of reinstatement and back wages along-with seniority and past service benefits and compensation as claimed by him.

12. Stepping into witness box as PW1 has sworn in affidavit Ex. PW1/A reiterating and reaffirming her pleadings as stipulated in claim petition. In her affidavit she has claimed to have worked with the respondent/department for more than 160 days in Pangi Sub Division Chamba District and remained engaged from 1996 to October, 2004. She has also stated on oath that no notice under Section 25- F of the Act was given by the respondent before terminating her service and at the same time no compensation in lieu thereof notice period was paid to her and thus her termination was illegal and void entitling petitioner benefit of reinstatement of service with full back wages and all the other consequential service benefits. The petitioner has further alleged on oath that respondent/department after terminating her services in October, 2004 by oral order had engaged several co-workers who were junior to petitioner were retained in service. Not only this, the persons who were junior to petitioner are stated to have been regularized in service and thus respondent had not followed the mandate of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act which was obligatory on its part. The case of petitioner also remains that she had served respondent with due diligence and had spotless service record as respondent/department had never called any explanation or raised charge-sheet against her but even while retrenching petitioner from service, no notice was given. The petitioner has also explained reason for not approaching the authorities under Labour Act and thereafter before this Tribunal, as there existed no road between Chamba town to Pangi Tehsil till 2012 and petitioner had moved before the Labour Officer raising demand notice consequent upon which a failure report was submitted and as the Labour Commissioner did not make reference for industrial dispute raised by petitioner, the petitioner had moved before the Hon'ble High Court by filing CWP where direction was passed for making reference to the Labour Court due to which delay had occurred and same was satisfactorily explained.

13. In so far as plea of abandonment raised by respondent is concerned, the same merits rejection in view of the fact that respondent had failed to produce any record by which it could be established that whenever petitioner absented from her duty as also reflected in mandays chart Ex. RW1/B any notice or letter was ever issued. On this point respondent as RW1 has specifically admitted that whenever petitioner abandoned the job, no notice had been issued. RW1 specifically admitted that no departmental inquiry was initiated against petitioner even after October, 2004. No reason whatsoever has been assigned for such any action or omission on the part of respondent in not initiating any departmental proceedings or making correspondence calling upon the petitioner to join service. This prima facie belies the stand taken by the respondent as abandonment has to be proved like any other fact in issue. The petitioner, on the other hand, as PW1 in cross-examination has specifically denied that she used to leave the job in between and attended the work intermittently rather she has claimed that intermit breaks had been deliberately given to her by the respondent in the service record of petitioner so that petitioner did not complete 160 days of work as required for Pangi Tehsil area and also for applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. As such, in absence of any specific and reliable evidence led by respondent, it would be unsafe to hold that respondent had established plea of abandonment.

14. A bare glance on the mandays chart Ex. RW1/B would reveal that petitioner had worked for 167 days in the year 1996, 142 days in 1997, 145 days in 1998, 133 days in 1999, 156 days in 2000, 97 days in 2001, 99 days in 2002, 116 days in 2003 and 105 days in 2004 and thus a total of her service in 1996 to 2004 in 9 years she had worked for 1160 days in her entire service period. Be it noticed that except the year 1996 petitioner had not worked for more than 160 days and as there is no reference from the Labour Commissioner, Shimla on the point of artificial breaks, this court is to confine its findings only with regard to alleged illegal termination. It is evident from mandays chart Ex. RW1/B that in the year 2004 the petitioner had merely worked for 105 days and thus immediately in preceding 12 calendar months from the month of termination of petitioner had not rendered service of 160 days so as to meet requirement of law of having continuous service of one year and thus it was not at all required from respondent to have issued a notice envisaged under Section 25-F of the Act. As such, the respondent is held to have not violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

15. Ld. counsel for petitioner has contended with vehemence that large number of workers who were junior to petitioner had been appointed and these workers have been retained in service and regularized. The grievance of petitioner remains that principle of 'Last come First go' was not followed as the juniors were retained and services of petitioner despite being senior was terminated without any valid reason. Ex. RW1/C is the year-wise mandays of daily waged workers who were junior to the petitioner and had joined in the year 2000 or thereafter. All of these co-workers shown in Ex. RW1/C the year-wise mandays details of workers of Division HPPWD Killar were certainly junior to petitioner who were given sufficient work existing in those years more than 200 days in a year whereas the petitioner had been not given muster roll for the whole month. Ex. RW1/C also established that all the co- workers shown in this document have worked for more than 160 days in most of the years although they were junior to petitioner. Evidently, there is no iota of evidence of respondent establishing that petitioner was called upon to join for service at any time after October, 2004 even at the time when junior persons were reengaged. That being so the respondent had certainly violated the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act as the juniors workers mentioned in para no.10 of the affidavit were retained whereas petitioner was senior from these co-workers having joined service in 1996 was terminated and even thereafter respondent omitted to afford opportunity to petitioner for reemployment for work which also violates the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of Central Bank of India vs. S. Satyam, 1996 (5) SCC 419 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for the applicability of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act, there was no necessity of claimant/petitioner to have worked for 240 days as in case of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

16. Repudiating claim of petitioner, the respondent, on the other hand, has made futile attempt to justify engagement of junior workers and their retention in service on the basis of orders of Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Court of H.P. as reflected in Ex. RW1/C1 to Ex RW1/C7. These judgments/orders have been gone through which revealed that respondent had wrongly terminated the services of those claimant/petitioner and for said reasons they were directed to be reinstated. Thus, plea that persons were directed to be appointed in pursuance to awards/orders Ext. Rw1/C1 to Ex. RW1/C7 were primarily on the basis of court orders would not defeat the claim of the petitioner as status of these person being junior to petitioner does not get negatived. As such, even when petitioner is proved to have not worked for more than 160 days in preceding 8 years which entitled her for regularization of her service per government policy, yet respondent is not absolved from its accountability of provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act and as such it is held that respondent had violated the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act.

2720 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 17. Ld. counsel for petitioner has contended that after petitioner's termination in October, 2004, she had remained unemployed and was not earning anything thereafter as such was entitled for full back wages. Repudiating the arguments of ld. Authorized Representative of petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. for the State has taken this court through cross-examination of the petitioner who has admitted that she had cultivatable land with her and also worked a private labourer. Thus, plea of having remained not gainfully employed gets belied admission of petitioner in cross-examination in which she had maintained that she had been earning from agricultural land as well as she has been working as daily wager privately. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. M. Nagangouda (2007) 10 SCC 765 in which Division Bench comprising of Justice A.R. Lakshmanan and Justice Altamas Kabir had held that 'term gainfully employment would also include self employment wherefrom income is generated. It was income either from employment in an establishment or from self employment merely differentiates the sources from which income is generated, the end use being the same'. Applying the ratio of judgment of 2007 (supra) to this case since the petitioner was earning from her agricultural and manual pursuits, the same were sufficient to maintain her and her family. It is thus held that petitioner was gainfully employed. Be it stated here that Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase's case has held that the Labour Court was not justified in holding that merely because the respondent was receiving agriculture income, she cannot be treated to be engaged in gainful employment. Since the petitioner had income from agriculture pursuits for her livelihood it cannot be stated that petitioner was not gainfully employed and thus would not be entitled full back wages. In view of the forgoing discussion, it is held that the relationship of workman and employer existed between petitioner and respondent and that petitioner was illegally retrenched without compliance of Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Act although remained gainfully employed after her retrenchment. Thus, applying the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court (2007 supra), it may not be erroneous to hold that petitioner was gainfully employed and thus would be not entitled for back wages for the period she was out of job on being terminated by the respondent.

18. Lastly, Ld. Dy. D.A. for State has contended with vehemence that there is inordinate and explained delay which disentitles petitieonr relief claimed for by him. On the other hand, ld. Authorized Representative for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014 Lab IC 4266 (SC) and the relevant paras of the judgment are produced below for reference:

"12. Therefore, in our considered view, the observations made by this Court in the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board case (supra) upon which the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana has placed reliance cannot be applied to the fact situation of the case on hand, for the reason that the Labour Court has erroneously rejected the reference without judiciously considering all the relevant factors of the case particularly the points of dispute referred to it and answered the 2nd issue regarding the reference being barred by limitation but not on the merits of the case. The said decision has no application to the fact situation and also for the reason the catena of decisions of this Court referred to supra, wherein this Court has categorically held that the provisions of Limitation Act under Article 137 has no application to make reference by the appropriate government to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of existing industrial dispute between workmen and the employer.

13. In the case on hand, no doubt there is a delay in raising the dispute by the

appellant; the Labour Court nevertheless has the power to mould the relief

accordingly. At the time of adjudication, if the dispute referred to the Labour Court

राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 is not adjudicated by it, it does not mean that the dispute ceases to exist. The appropriate government in exercise of its statutory power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act can refer the industrial dispute, between the parties, at any time, to either the jurisdictional Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal as interpreted by this Court in the Avon Services case referred to supra. Therefore, the State Government has rightly exercised its power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act and referred the points of dispute to the Labour Court as the same are in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Avon Services & Sapan Kumar Pandit cases referred to supra.

14. Further, the workman cannot be denied to seek relief only on the ground of delay in raising the dispute as held in the case of S.M. Nilajkar & Ors. v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka[4] it was held by this Court as follows—

"17. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that on account of delay in raising the dispute by the appellants the High Court was justified in denying relief to the appellants. We cannot agree...... In Ratan Chandra Sammanta and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra)1993 AIR SCW 2214, it was held that a casual labourer retrenched by the employer deprives himself of remedy available in law by delay itself, lapse of time results in losing the remedy and the right as well. The delay would certainly be fatal if it has resulted in material evidence relevant to adjudication being lost and rendered not available. However, we do not think that the delay in the case at hand has been so culpable as to disentitle the appellants for any relief....." (Emphasis laid by the Court) In view of the legal principles laid down by this Court in the above judgment, the reference of the industrial dispute made in the case on hand by the State Government to the Labour Court to adjudicate the existing industrial dispute between the parties was made within a reasonable time, considering the circumstances in which the workman was placed, firstly, as there was a criminal case pending against her and secondly, the respondent had assured the workman that she would be reinstated after her acquittal from the criminal case. Moreover, it is reasonable to adjudicate the industrial dispute in spite of the delay in raising and referring the matter, since there is no mention of any loss or unavailability of material evidence due to the delay. Thus, we do not consider the delay in raising the industrial dispute and referring the same to the Labour Court for adjudication as gravely erroneous and it does not debar the workman from claiming rightful relief from her employer.

15. In the case of Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum- Processing Service Society Limited & Anr.[5] this Court has opined that relief cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay, stating that:—

"10. It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labour court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay in shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date she raised the demand regarding her illegal retrenchment/ termination or dismissal. The Court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages (Emphasis laid by the Court) instead of full back wages....." 2722 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 Hence, we are of the opinion, having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case that there is no delay or latches on the part of the workman from the date of her acquittal in the criminal case. Thereafter, upon failure of the respondent in adhering to the assurance given to the workman that she would be reinstated after her acquittal from the criminal case, the workman approached the conciliation officer and the State Government to make a reference to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute with regard to the order of dismissal passed by the respondent. Keeping in mind the date of acquittal of the appellant and the date on which she approached the conciliation officer by raising the dispute, since the respondent had not adhered to its assurance, the State Government had rightly referred the dispute for its adjudication. Therefore it cannot be said that there was a delay on the part of the appellant in raising the dispute and getting it referred to the Labour Court by the State Government.

17. Further, the Labour Court on an erroneous assumption of law framed the additional issue regarding the limitation in raising the dispute and its reference by the State Government to the Labour Court. Thus, the Labour Court has ignored the legal principles laid down by this Court in the cases referred to supra. The award passed by the Labour Court was accepted erroneously by both the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court by dismissing the Civil Writ Petition & the Letters Patent Appeal without examining the case in its proper perspective, keeping in view the power of the State Government under Section 10(1)I and the object and intendment of the Act. Not adjudicating the existing industrial dispute on merits between the parties referred to it may lead to disruption of industrial peace and harmony, which is the foremost important aspect in Industrial Jurisprudence as the same would affect the public interest at large.

19. Ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has also contended with vehemence that claim petition is barred by limitation on account of delay and laches. It has been pointed that termination of petitioner in this case took place on 2004 and the industrial dispute was raised after several years of retrenchment. Repudiating the argument by ld. counsel, ld. AR for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment reported in 2007 LHLJ 903 Hon'ble High Court of H.P. (Bhatag Ram's case) in which it has been held that delay in raising dispute may be considered by court at the time of granting final relief however in various other judgments even longer delay has been condoned. In Divisional Manager, HPFC & another vs. Garibu Ram, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 1160, delay of more than 10 years was condoned besides Hon'ble High Court has held that principle of Limitation Act is not applicable to the industrial dispute. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajayab Singh vs. Sirhind Co- operative Marketing- cum-Processing Society Limited and Another, (1999) 6 SCC 82 in which it has been held that the principle of Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply to the proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act.

20. Relying upon the aforestated judgment, it has been contended that claim of petitioner cannot be defeated on the point of delay and laches. Repudiating arguments advanced by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub- Division Kota and Mohan Lal [2013 (139) FLR 125], the relevant para of the judgment are produced below for reference:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 25-F and 10- Limitation Act, 1963- Section 5- Industrial dispute- Termination of service-Finding of Lboaur Court that workman had completed 240 days in calander year and her termination was in violation o section 25-F of the I.D.Act- Wrokman worked from 1.11.1984 to 17.2.1986 in all 286 days2723 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 during employment. her services terminated on 18.2.1986. Industrial dispute raised after 6 years of termination. Admitted delay of 6 years not kept in view by the Labour Court- Judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court flawed and unsustainable. Reinstatement of the workman not the appropriate relief. In lieu of reinstatement compensation of Rs.one lac directed to be paid to the workman by the appellant- employer within six weeks failing which interest @ workman 9% p.a. will be payable. [Paras 21 and 22] Limitation Act, 1963. Section 5- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Section 25-F- Termination of service- Industrial dispute raised after six years- Limitation Act not applicable to reference made under the I.D. Act-Delay in raising industrial disputes definitely an important circumstances which the Labour Court must keep in view before granting relief".

21. Repudiating the arguments by ld. Dy. D.A. for the State, ld. counsel for claimant/petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Tapash Kumar Paul vs. BSNL & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 357 wherein Hon'ble Court held that a Court may pass an order of reinstatement by awarding compensation but the same has to be based on justifiable grounds. In this judgment, it was held that compensation can be granted in a situation where the industry is closed or that employees has superannuated or going to retire shortly and no period is left to his credit or where workman has been rendered in capacitated to discharge duties cannot be reinstated and/or fourthly when he has lost confidence of the management to discharge duties. It was observed that there may be appropriate cases on facts which may justify substituting an order of reinstatement by award of compensation but that has to be supported by some legal and justifiable reasons indicating why the reinstatement should be followed to be substituted by award of compensation. Ld. counsel for the petitioner with the aid of above-said judgment had argued that there are only four situations when a worker may be awarded compensation instead of reinstatement but the judgment has certainly not been correctly appreciated by ld. counsel as this judgment postulates probable four situations which are illustrate in nature where compensation may be awarded instead of reinstatement but that does not mean that except the four grounds, no other ground would be appropriate for awarding compensation. In the case in hand before this court, it has come that petitioner had abandoned the job who did not report for duty for several years and later gave notice requesting for joining of duties but the conditions in para no.5 of judgment (2015 supra) even if not met requirement, cannot be a ground to reinstate the petitioner and it is only compensation which would be appropriate relief. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'be Apex Court titled as Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and Ors. reported in AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 121, Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014(3) Apex Court Judgments 652. I have gone through these judgments and of view that they don't come to rescue the petitioner on point of reinstatement instead of compensation. Ld. Dy. D.A. for State on the other hand has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh v. Akhilesh Kumar Khare & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 3473. It has been contended that engagement of claimant/petitioner in this case was not through regular mode of recruitment and applying the ratio of this judgment AIR 2015 SC supra, claim of petitioner for reinstatement can be negated and thus compensation would be sufficient for redressal of grievance of the claimant/petitioner. Similarly, in 2016 (1) Him. L.R. 502 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Chaman Singh relied by ld. AR for petitioner interpretation of Section 137 of Limitation Act was involved which provides that Article 137 of Limitation Act did not apply to industrial disputes. In 2014 (3) Apex Court Judgment 652 (SC) similar view was reiterated which clearly mandates that claimant/petitioner cannot be denied relief sought for merely on the ground of delay and laches. That being so, the law remains as it was that ground of delay and laches, claimant/petitioner cannot be denied relief rather the court has to consider various aspects before moulding 2724 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 relief and the case in hand it would not be erroneous to mention here that the claimant/petitioner can be reasonably indemnified by ordering compensation and not by reinstatement. In so far as judgment of AIR 2015 SC 1373 titled as Mackinon Machenize & Company Ltd. vs. Mackinon Employees Union is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held on closure of unit of company principle of 'Last come First go' was not followed which violated Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act and retrenchment was held illegal entitling petitioner for retrenchment compensation. Since the facts of case of Mackinon Machenize's case are different from case in hand as in former closure of unit of company was involved whereas in case in hand before this court, there is no closure of company rather it is the department of HPPWD which had engaged petitioner without following of the procedure although subject to funds and availability of work but in the case in hand petitioner had abandoned the job who never reported for duty. As such, when there is no closure of any unit by respondent which the petitioner was engaged, judgment of Mackinon Machenize cannot be made applicable.

22. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and case law relied by them, it can be safely concluded that delay in raising industrial dispute is certainly important aspect/circumstance which court has to keep in mind while exercising discretion. In para nos. 20 and 21 of the judgment as referred to in this case reported in 2013 (136) FLR 893 (SC) titled as Assistant Engineer Rajasthan Development Corporation and another vs. Geetam Singh provides that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court or Tribunal has to keep in mind all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment (2013 supra) before that workman had worked for 286 days and had raised industrial dispute in 1992 whereas her services have been terminated in 1986 and she raised industrial dispute after six years. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that though compensation awarded by Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court was too low and liable to be enhanced by the Division Bench but surely reinstatement of the workman in the facts and circumstances is not the appropriate relief and thus Hon'ble Apex Court awarded a lump-sum of Rs.1 lakh along-with interest @ 9% per annum if the respondent failed to make payment of compensation within six weeks from the date of judgment. In the case in hand before this court factors which have weighed are that the petitioner in all remained engaged for about 9 years and actually worked for 1160 days as per mandays chart on record and that the services of petitioner were disengaged in October, 2004 who worked as non skilled worker and had raised industrial dispute by issuance of demand notice after about nine years i.e. demand notice was given on 28.2.2012. Taking into consideration factors mentioned above in pursuance to judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above, petitioner would not be entitled either for reinstatement or for back wages but a lump-sum compensation would be appropriate relief in view of judgment 2013 (139) FLR 25 (SC). The judgments relied upon by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner on the matter of delay and laches is more or less settled law that claim of the petitioner could not be solely declined on the ground of delay and laches. Similarly, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in 2014 titled as Raghubir Singh's case also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner as in this judgment also the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the mandate as given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in previous judgment in the year 2013 i.e. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub- Division Kota and Mohan Lal's case. I have gone through these judgments which are not attracted in this present case as this court not declining relief to the petitioner on the ground of limitation rather on the basis of guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court laid down in judgment of 2013.

23. In view of foregoing discussion, a lump-sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) would be appropriate relief to which the petitioner is entitled in the2725 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 facts and circumstances of the case as stated above. It is further made clear that amount of compensation shall be paid within four months from the date of Award failing which the petitioner would be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from date of Award till its realization. Issues no. 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.4

24. On the plea of non-maintainability of the claim petition under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has failed to allege in reply in what manner petition is not maintainable. Thus, vague plea merits rejection outright. Otherwise also, from pleadings and evidence on record, no inference of claim petition being not maintainable could be raised against claimant/petitioner. This issue is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondent.

RELIEF

25. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, the respondent is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the petitioner in lieu of the reinstatement in services as well as the other consequential service benefits. Amount of compensation so awarded will be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within four months from today failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay the interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of award till the date of its realization. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

26. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

27. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette.

28. File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room. Announced in the open Court today this 5th day of May, 2016.

(K. K. Sharma) Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal,

Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

__________

IN THE COURT OF K. K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA (HP)

Ref. No. : 411/2015

Date of Institution : 10.09.2015

Date of Decision : 05.05.2016

Ms. Dharsi Devi d/o Shri Guhlu Ram, r/o Village Kurei, Post Office Rei, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. at present R/O Village and Post Office Dharwas, Tehsil Pangi, District ….Petitioner. Chamba, H.P.

Versus

Executive Engineer, Killar Division, H.P.P.W.D. Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, ....Respondent. H.P.

2726 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 Reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. O.P. Bhardwaj, Adv.

For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A.

AWARD

The reference given below has been received from the appropriate Government for adjudication:

"Whether the industrial dispute raised by the worker Ms. Dharsi Devi D/O Shri Guhlu Ram, R/O Village Kurei, Post Office Rei, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. at present R/O Village and Post Office Dharwas, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. before the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division, Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. vide demand notice dated 19.12.2011 regarding her alleged illegal termination of service during September, 2004 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Ms. Dharsi Devi D/O Shri Guhlu Ram, R/O Village Kurei, Post Office Rei, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. at present R/O Village and Post Office Dharwas, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. during September, 2004 without complying 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 aggrieved workman is entitled to from the above employer?" 2. On receipt of reference from appropriate government, notices were issued to the parties in pursuance to which claimant/petitioner has filed statement of claim.

3. Brief facts as enumerated in the present claim petition by the petitioner above named reveal that she had been initially engaged as daily waged beldar on muster roll basis in the year 1995 who continuously worked till October, 2004 with the respondent. Averments made in the petition further revealed that petitioner had worked for 160 days in each calendar year as the criteria prescribed for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil District Chamba and became eligible for continuous service envisaged under statutory provisions of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity). Averments made in the petition revealed that the services of petitioner had interrupted by way of intermittent/artificial breaks given by the respondent/department deliberately and as such breaks are required to be counted as continuous services for the purposes of calculation of 160 days so as for the applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. The grievance of petitioner remains that respondent/department had terminated/disengaged petitioner from daily wage service orally without issuing any one month notice in writing indicating the reason for retrenchment besides no retrenchment compensation was paid to petitioner while respondent had illegally terminated her service. It is contended that respondent had not followed the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act while disengaging the services of petitioner. It is stated that petitioner is very poor and no source of income besides after termination of the services of petitioner, she had approached the respondent time and again but of no avail. Grievance of petitioner further remains that when the services of petitioner have been terminated, respondent/department had reengaged number of new workman from time to time and respondent had not followed the principle of 'Last come, First go' as envisaged under Section 25-G of the Act. It is further alleged that respondent/department had continuously retained junior to petitioner and who are still in service with the respondent namely Chuni Lal who appointed in 1997, Hukam Chand in 1997, Tek Chand in 1999, Prakash Chand in 2001 and Dev Raj in 2007. The claimant/petitioner claimed that she had spotless service record who never been charge-sheeted for any act of indiscipline or2727 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 negligence or her conduct and even at the time of verbal termination, no charge- sheet had been served upon her and the at the same time, no opportunity of hearing had been afforded to him. The petitioner also alleges that she has remained unemployed ever since her illegal termination from month of October, 2004 till the date of institution of present claim petition who had been nowhere gainfully employed and was thus entitled for full back wages. Accordingly alleging respondent to have committed violation of statutory provision of Section 25-F, Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for setting aside oral order of termination/retrenchment by the respondent in the month of October, 2004. She further prayed for reinstatement in service w.e.f. month of October, 2004 along- with back wages, seniority including continuity in service as petitioner has remained unemployed since the date of her illegal termination. The petitioner has also prayed that period of intermittent/fictional breaks given time and again during entire service of petitioner between 1995 to October, 2004 be counted 160 days continuous service and regularization of the service of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2003 having completed 8 years of service and per the policy of HP Govt. in pursuance to law settled by Hon'ble High Court of H.P. and to any other relief petitioner is entitled.

4. The respondent contested claim petition, filed reply inter-alia taken preliminary objections of maintainability, claim petition being bad on account of delay and laches. On merits denied that petitioner had worked for more than 160 days in each calendar year rather clarified by stating that petitioner was engaged as daily waged beldar in 1992 who remained engaged till 2004 but had worked intermittently as petitioner used to come and attend the work at her own sweet will and convenience. Relying upon the mandays chart, it has been categorically pleaded by the respondent that petitioner had not completed 160 days in each calendar year as required for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil. Allegations of fictional breaks given by respondent to the petitioner have been denied. In so far as engagement of persons junior to petitioner mentioned in para no. 10 of the claim petition were appointed as per order of Labour Court and no other juniors to the petitioner had been retained in service by the respondent. On the plea of termination of service of petitioner, respondent specifically alleges that petitioner had left the job at her own will therefore serving of notice or pay in lieu thereof was not required. Reiterating its stand respondent has maintained that petitioner had left the work of her own sweet will and the persons mentioned in para no.10 are stated to have engaged as per direction of the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal Dharamshala and respondent had not violated the principle of 'Last come, First go'. It is also contended that if petitioner had been terminated in 2004 she would have definitely raised industrial dispute immediately and that after seven years petitioner is stated to be agitating the matter which is bad on account of delay and laches. It is also contended that since the services of petitioner had not been terminated by the respondent, question of issuance of notice or wages in lieu thereof did not arise and at the same time, there was no necessity for charge-sheet or issuing any notice of petitioner after her termination. It is contended that petitioner was agriculturist and gainfully employed and was thus not entitled for back wages.

5. The petitioner filed rejoinder, reiterated her stand as maintained in the claim petition. Further asserted that provisions of Limitation Act did not eclipse the claim of petitioner in totality besides allegation of violation of principle of 'Last come First go' was specifically denied.

6. In order to prove her case, petitioner had examined herself as PW1 tendered/proved her affidavit Ex. PW1/A under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, copy of order dated 14.7.2015 Ex. PW1/B and closed evidence. On the other hand, repudiating the evidence led by the petitioner, respondent examined RW1 Shri Bal Krishan Kapil, the then Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Killar as RW1 tendered/proved mandays chart of petitioner Ex. RW1/B, Ex. RW1/C copy of mandays chart of co-workers, Ex. RW1/C1 to Ex. RW1/C4 copy of orders/awards and closed the evidence.

2728 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 7. I have heard the ld. counsel of petitioner and ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent, gone through records of the case carefully relevant for disposed of this case.

8. From the contentions raised, following issues were framed on 27.11.2015 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated 19.12.2011 qua her termination of service during September, 2004 by respondent suffers from the vice of delay and laches as alleged? If so, its effect? …OPP.

2. Whether termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent during September, 2004 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged? … OPP.

3. If issue no. 2 is proved in affirmative, to what service benefits the petitioner is …OPP.

entitled to?

4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged?

…OPR.

Relief.

9. For the reasons detailed here under, my findings on the above issues are as follows:—

Issue No.1 : Yes

Issue No.2 : Yes

Issue No.3 : Discussed

Issue No.4 : No

Relief. : Petition is partly allowed awarding compensation Rs.1,30,000/- per operative part of award.

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

ISSUES NO.1 TO 3

10. All these issues have been taken up together for discussion being interconnected which can be disposed of simultaneously without repetition of evidence.

11. Relationship of petitioner having been engaged as daily waged beldar by respondent on muster roll basis in the year 1992 continuously worked till September, 2004 with the respondent is not in dispute. Admittedly, petitioner was engaged without any written order or settlement of terms and conditions by the respondent. It is equally not in dispute that no written order was passed while terminating service of the petitioner as claim of respondent remains that it had not retrenched petitioner from service who had abandoned the job of her own and used to work intermittently as per her own wish and convenience. Admittedly, the reference of appropriate govt. does not relate to plea of fictional breaks but only with regard to petitioner's termination from service. In the backdrop of foregoing admitted facts on record, claim of petitioner requires to be adjudicated with a view to determine if petitioner is entitled for relief of reinstatement and back wages along-with seniority and past service benefits and compensation as claimed by him.

12. Stepping into witness box as PW1 has sworn in affidavit Ex. PW1/A reiterating and reaffirming her pleadings as stipulated in claim petition. In her affidavit she has claimed to have worked with the respondent/department for more than 160 days in Pangi Sub Division Chamba District and remained engaged from 1992 to September, 2004. She has also stated on oath that no notice under Section 25-F of the Act was given by the respondent before terminating her service and at the same time no compensation in lieu thereof notice period was paid to her and thus her termination was illegal and void entitling petitioner benefit of reinstatement of service with full back wages and all the other consequential service benefits. The petitioner has further alleged on oath that respondent/department after terminating her services in September, 2004 by oral order had engaged several co-workers who were junior to petitioner were retained in service. Not only this, the persons who were junior to petitioner are stated to have been regularized in service and thus respondent had not followed the mandate of Sections 25-G and 25- H of the Act which was obligatory on its part. The case of petitioner also remains that she had served respondent with due diligence and had spotless service record as respondent/department had never called any explanation or raised charge-sheet against her but even while retrenching petitioner from service, no notice was given. The petitioner has also explained reason for not approaching the authorities under Labour Act and thereafter before this Tribunal, as there existed no road between Chamba town to Pangi Tehsil till 2011 and petitioner had moved before the Labour Officer raising demand notice consequent upon which a failure report was submitted and as the Labour Commissioner did not make reference for industrial dispute raised by petitioner, the petitioner had moved before the Hon'ble High Court by filing CWP where direction was passed for making reference to the Labour Court due to which delay had occurred and same was satisfactorily explained.

13. In so far as plea of abandonment raised by respondent is concerned, the same merits rejection in view of the fact that respondent had failed to produce any record by which it could be established that whenever petitioner absented from her duty as also reflected in mandays chart Ex. RW1/B any notice or letter was ever issued. On this point respondent as RW1 has specifically admitted that whenever petitioner abandoned the job, no notice had been issued. RW1 specifically admitted that no departmental inquiry was initiated against petitioner even after September, 2004. No reason whatsoever has been assigned for such any action or omission on the part of respondent in not initiating any departmental proceedings or making correspondence calling upon the petitioner to join service. This prima facie belies the stand taken by the respondent as abandonment has to be proved like any other fact in issue. The petitioner, on the other hand, as PW1 in cross-examination has specifically denied that she used to leave the job in between and attended the work intermittently rather she has claimed that intermit breaks had been deliberately given to her by the respondent in the service record of petitioner so that petitioner did not complete 160 days of work as required for Pangi Tehsil area and also for applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. As such, in absence of any specific and reliable evidence led by respondent, it would be unsafe to hold that respondent had established plea of abandonment.

14. A bare glance on the mandays chart Ex. RW1/B would reveal that petitioner had worked for 135 days in the year 1992, 161 days in 1993, 105 days in 1994, 130 days in 1995, 122 days in 1996, 136 days in 1997, 138 days in 1998, 103 days in 1999, 30 days in 2000, 72 days in 2001, 103 days in 2002, 27 days in 2003 and 100 days in 2004 and thus a total of her service in 1992 to 2004 in 13 years she had worked for 1392 days in her entire service period. Be it noticed that except the year 1993 petitioner had not worked for more than 160 days and as there is no reference from the Labour Commissioner, Shimla on the point of artificial breaks, this court is to confine its findings only with regard to alleged illegal termination. It is evident from mandays chart Ex. RW1/B that in the year 2004 the petitioner had merely worked for 100 days and thus immediately in preceding 12 calendar months from the month of termination of 2730 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 petitioner had not rendered service of 160 days so as to meet requirement of law of having continuous service of one year and thus it was not at all required from respondent to have issued a notice envisaged under Section 25-F of the Act. As such, the respondent is held to have not violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

15. Ld. counsel for petitioner has contended with vehemence that large number of workers who were junior to petitioner had been appointed and these workers have been retained in service and regularized. The grievance of petitioner remains that principle of 'Last come First go' was not followed as the juniors were retained and services of petitioner despite being senior was terminated without any valid reason. Ex. RW1/C is the year-wise mandays of daily waged workers who were junior to the petitioner and had joined in the year 2000 or thereafter. All of these co-workers shown in Ex. RW1/C the year-wise mandays details of workers of Division HPPWD Killar were certainly junior to petitioner who were given sufficient work existing in those years more than 200 days in a year whereas the petitioner had been not given muster roll for the whole month. Ex. RW1/C also established that all the co- workers shown in this document have worked for more than 160 days in most of the years although they were junior to petitioner. Evidently, there is no iota of evidence of respondent establishing that petitioner was called upon to join for service at any time after September, 2004 even at the time when junior persons were reengaged. That being so the respondent had certainly violated the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act as the juniors workers mentioned in para no.10 of the affidavit were retained whereas petitioner was senior from these co-workers having joined service in 1992 was terminated and even thereafter respondent omitted to afford opportunity to petitioner for reemployment for work which also violates the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of Central Bank of India vs. S. Satyam, 1996 (5) SCC 419 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for the applicability of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act, there was no necessity of claimant/petitioner to have worked for 240 days as in case of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

16. Repudiating claim of petitioner, the respondent, on the other hand, has made futile attempt to justify engagement of junior workers and their retention in service on the basis of orders of Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Court of H.P. as reflected in Ex. RW1/C1 to Ex RW1/C4. These judgments/orders have been gone through which revealed that respondent had wrongly terminated the services of those claimant/petitioner and for said reasons they were directed to be reinstated. Thus, plea that persons were directed to be appointed in pursuance to awards/orders Ext. Rw1/C1 to Ex. RW1/C4 were primarily on the basis of court orders would not defeat the claim of the petitioner as status of these person being junior to petitioner does not get negatived. As such, even when petitioner is proved to have not worked for more than 160 days in preceding 8 years which entitled her for regularization of her service per government policy, yet respondent is not absolved from its accountability of provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act and as such it is held that respondent had violated the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. 17. Ld. counsel for petitioner has contended that after petitioner's termination in September, 2004, she had remained unemployed and was not earning anything thereafter as such was entitled for full back wages. Repudiating the arguments of ld. Authorized Representative of petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. for the State has taken this court through cross-examination of the petitioner who has admitted that she had cultivatable land with her and also worked a private labourer. Thus, plea of having remained not gainfully employed gets belied admission of petitioner in cross-examination in which she had maintained that she had been earning from agricultural land as well as she has been working as daily wager privately. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court North East Karnataka Road Transport2731 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 Corporation vs. M. Nagangouda (2007) 10 SCC 765 in which Division Bench comprising of Justice A.R. Lakshmanan and Justice Altamas Kabir had held that 'term gainfully employment would also include self employment wherefrom income is generated. It was income either from employment in an establishment or from self employment merely differentiates the sources from which income is generated, the end use being the same'. Applying the ratio of judgment of 2007 (supra) to this case since the petitioner was earning from her agricultural and manual pursuits, the same were sufficient to maintain her and her family. It is thus held that petitioner was gainfully employed. Be it stated here that Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase's case has held that the Labour Court was not justified in holding that merely because the respondent was receiving agriculture income, she cannot be treated to be engaged in gainful employment. Since the petitioner had income from agriculture pursuits for her livelihood it cannot be stated that petitioner was not gainfully employed and thus would not be entitled full back wages. In view of the forgoing discussion, it is held that the relationship of workman and employer existed between petitioner and respondent and that petitioner was illegally retrenched without compliance of Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Act although remained gainfully employed after her retrenchment. Thus, applying the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court (2007 supra), it may not be erroneous to hold that petitioner was gainfully employed and thus would be not entitled for back wages for the period she was out of job on being terminated by the respondent.

18. Lastly, Ld. Dy. D.A. for State has contended with vehemence that there is inordinate and explained delay which disentitles petitieonr relief claimed for by him. On the other hand, ld. Authorized Representative for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014 Lab IC 4266 (SC) and the relevant paras of the judgment are produced below for reference:

"12. Therefore, in our considered view, the observations made by this Court in the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board case (supra) upon which the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana has placed reliance cannot be applied to the fact situation of the case on hand, for the reason that the Labour Court has erroneously rejected the reference without judiciously considering all the relevant factors of the case particularly the points of dispute referred to it and answered the 2nd issue regarding the reference being barred by limitation but not on the merits of the case. The said decision has no application to the fact situation and also for the reason the catena of decisions of this Court referred to supra, wherein this Court has categorically held that the provisions of Limitation Act under Article 137 has no application to make reference by the appropriate government to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of existing industrial dispute between workmen and the employer.

13. In the case on hand, no doubt there is a delay in raising the dispute by the appellant; the Labour Court nevertheless has the power to mould the relief accordingly. At the time of adjudication, if the dispute referred to the Labour Court is not adjudicated by it, it does not mean that the dispute ceases to exist. The appropriate government in exercise of its statutory power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act can refer the industrial dispute, between the parties, at any time, to either the jurisdictional Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal as interpreted by this Court in the Avon Services case referred to supra. Therefore, the State Government has rightly exercised its power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act and referred the points of dispute to the Labour Court as the same are in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Avon Services & Sapan Kumar Pandit cases referred to supra.

2732 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 14. Further, the workman cannot be denied to seek relief only on the ground of delay in raising the dispute as held in the case of S.M. Nilajkar & Ors. v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka[4] it was held by this Court as follows—

"17. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that on account of delay in raising the dispute by the appellants the High Court was justified in denying relief to the appellants. We cannot agree...... In Ratan Chandra Sammanta and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra)1993 AIR SCW 2214, it was held that a casual labourer retrenched by the employer deprives himself of remedy available in law by delay itself, lapse of time results in losing the remedy and the right as well. The delay would certainly be fatal if it has resulted in material evidence relevant to adjudication being lost and rendered not available. However, we do not think that the delay in the case at hand has been so culpable as to disentitle the appellants for any relief....." (Emphasis laid by the Court) In view of the legal principles laid down by this Court in the above judgment, the reference of the industrial dispute made in the case on hand by the State Government to the Labour Court to adjudicate the existing industrial dispute between the parties was made within a reasonable time, considering the circumstances in which the workman was placed, firstly, as there was a criminal case pending against her and secondly, the respondent had assured the workman that she would be reinstated after her acquittal from the criminal case. Moreover, it is reasonable to adjudicate the industrial dispute in spite of the delay in raising and referring the matter, since there is no mention of any loss or unavailability of material evidence due to the delay. Thus, we do not consider the delay in raising the industrial dispute and referring the same to the Labour Court for adjudication as gravely erroneous and it does not debar the workman from claiming rightful relief from her employer.

15. In the case of Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum- Processing Service Society Limited & Anr.[5] this Court has opined that relief cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay, stating that:-

"10. It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labour court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay in shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date she raised the demand regarding her illegal retrenchment/ termination or dismissal. The Court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full back wages....." (Emphasis laid by the Court)

16. Hence, we are of the opinion, having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case that there is no delay or latches on the part of the workman from the date of her acquittal in the criminal case. Thereafter, upon failure of the respondent in adhering to the assurance given to the workman that she would be reinstated after her acquittal from the criminal case, the workman approached the conciliation officer and the State Government to make a reference to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute with regard to the order of dismissal passed by the respondent. Keeping in mind the date of acquittal of the appellant and the date on which she approached the conciliation officer by raising the dispute, since the respondent had not adhered to its assurance, the State Government had rightly referred the dispute for its adjudication. Therefore it cannot be said that there was a delay on the part of the appellant in raising the dispute and getting it referred to the Labour Court by the State Government.

17. Further, the Labour Court on an erroneous assumption of law framed the additional issue regarding the limitation in raising the dispute and its reference by the State Government to the Labour Court. Thus, the Labour Court has ignored the legal principles laid down by this Court in the cases referred to supra. The award passed by the Labour Court was accepted erroneously by both the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court by dismissing the Civil Writ Petition & the Letters Patent Appeal without examining the case in its proper perspective, keeping in view the power of the State Government under Section 10(1)(c) and the object and intendment of the Act. Not adjudicating the existing industrial dispute on merits between the parties referred to it may lead to disruption of industrial peace and harmony, which is the foremost important aspect in Industrial Jurisprudence as the same would affect the public interest at large.

19. Ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has also contended with vehemence that claim petition is barred by limitation on account of delay and laches. It has been pointed that termination of petitioner in this case took place on 2004 and the industrial dispute was raised after several years of retrenchment. Repudiating the argument by ld. counsel, ld. AR for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment reported in 2007 LHLJ 903 Hon'ble High Court of H.P. (Bhatag Ram's case) in which it has been held that delay in raising dispute may be considered by court at the time of granting final relief however in various other judgments even longer delay has been condoned. In Divisional Manager, HPFC & another vs. Garibu Ram, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 1160, delay of more than 10 years was condoned besides Hon'ble High Court has held that principle of Limitation Act is not applicable to the industrial dispute. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajayab Singh vs. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Limited and Another, (1999) 6 SCC 82 in which it has been held that the principle of Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply to the proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act.

20. Relying upon the aforestated judgment, it has been contended that claim of petitioner cannot be defeated on the point of delay and laches. Repudiating arguments advanced by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub- Division Kota and Mohan Lal [2013 (139) FLR 125], the relevant para of the judgment are produced below for reference:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 25-F and 10-Limitation Act, 1963- Section 5- Industrial dispute- Termination of service-Finding of Lboaur Court that workman had completed 240 days in calander year and her termination was in violation o section 25-F of the I.D.Act- Wrokman worked from 1.11.1984 to 17.2.1986 in all 286 days during employment. her services terminated on 18.2.1986. Industrial dispute raised after 6 years of termination. Admitted delay of 6 years not kept in view by the Labour Court- Judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court flawed and unsustainable. Reinstatement of the workman not the appropriate relief. In lieu of reinstatement compensation of Rs.one lac directed to be paid to the workman by the appellantemployer within six weeks failing which [Paras 21 and 22] interest @ workman 9% p.a. will be payable.

Limitation Act, 1963. Section 5- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Section 25-F- Termination of service- Industrial dispute raised after six years- Limitation Act not applicable to reference made under the I.D. Act-Delay in raising industrial disputes definitely an important circumstances which the Labour Court must keep in view before granting relief".

21. Repudiating the arguments by ld. Dy. D.A. for the State, ld. counsel for claimant/petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Tapash 2734 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 Kumar Paul vs. BSNL & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 357 wherein Hon'ble Court held that a Court may pass an order of reinstatement by awarding compensation but the same has to be based on justifiable grounds. In this judgment, it was held that compensation can be granted in a situation where the industry is closed or that employees has superannuated or going to retire shortly and no period is left to his credit or where workman has been rendered in capacitated to discharge duties cannot be reinstated and/or fourthly when he has lost confidence of the management to discharge duties. It was observed that there may be appropriate cases on facts which may justify substituting an order of reinstatement by award of compensation but that has to be supported by some legal and justifiable reasons indicating why the reinstatement should be followed to be substituted by award of compensation. Ld. counsel for the petitioner with the aid of above-said judgment had argued that there are only four situations when a worker may be awarded compensation instead of reinstatement but the judgment has certainly not been correctly appreciated by ld. counsel as this judgment postulates probable four situations which are illustrate in nature where compensation may be awarded instead of reinstatement but that does not mean that except the four grounds, no other ground would be appropriate for awarding compensation. In the case in hand before this court, it has come that petitioner had abandoned the job who did not report for duty for several years and later gave notice requesting for joining of duties but the conditions in para no.5 of judgment (2015 supra) even if not met requirement, cannot be a ground to reinstate the petitioner and it is only compensation which would be appropriate relief. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'be Apex Court titled as Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and Ors. reported in AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 121, Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014(3) Apex Court Judgments 652. I have gone through these judgments and of view that they don't come to rescue the petitioner on point of reinstatement instead of compensation. Ld. Dy. D.A. for State on the other hand has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh v. Akhilesh Kumar Khare & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 3473. It has been contended that engagement of claimant/petitioner in this case was not through regular mode of recruitment and applying the ratio of this judgment AIR 2015 SC supra, claim of petitioner for reinstatement can be negated and thus compensation would be sufficient for redressal of grievance of the claimant/petitioner. Similarly, in 2016 (1) Him. L.R. 502 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Chaman Singh relied by ld. AR for petitioner interpretation of Section 137 of Limitation Act was involved which provides that Article 137 of Limitation Act did not apply to industrial disputes. In 2014 (3) Apex Court Judgment 652 (SC) similar view was reiterated which clearly mandates that claimant/petitioner cannot be denied relief sought for merely on the ground of delay and laches. That being so, the law remains as it was that ground of delay and laches, claimant/petitioner cannot be denied relief rather the court has to consider various aspects before moulding relief and the case in hand it would not be erroneous to mention here that the claimant/petitioner can be reasonably indemnified by ordering compensation and not by reinstatement. In so far as judgment of AIR 2015 SC 1373 titled as Mackinon Machenize & Company Ltd. vs. Mackinon Employees Union is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held on closure of unit of company principle of 'Last come First go' was not followed which violated Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act and retrenchment was held illegal entitling petitioner for retrenchment compensation. Since the facts of case of Mackinon Machenize's case are different from case in hand as in former closure of unit of company was involved whereas in case in hand before this court, there is no closure of company rather it is the department of HPPWD which had engaged petitioner without following of the procedure although subject to funds and availability of work but in the case in hand petitioner had abandoned the job who never reported for duty. As such, when there is no closure of any unit by respondent which the petitioner was engaged, judgment of Mackinon Machenize cannot be made applicable.

22. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and case law relied by them, it can be safely concluded that delay in raising industrial dispute is certainly important aspect/circumstance2735 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 which court has to keep in mind while exercising discretion. In para nos. 20 and 21 of the judgment as referred to in this case reported in 2013 (136) FLR 893 (SC) titled as Assistant Engineer Rajasthan Development Corporation and another vs. Geetam Singh provides that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court or Tribunal has to keep in mind all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment (2013 supra) before that workman had worked for 286 days and had raised industrial dispute in 1992 whereas her services have been terminated in 1986 and she raised industrial dispute after six years. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that though compensation awarded by Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court was too low and liable to be enhanced by the Division Bench but surely reinstatement of the workman in the facts and circumstances is not the appropriate relief and thus Hon'ble Apex Court awarded a lump-sum of Rs.1 lakh along-with interest @ 9% per annum if the respondent failed to make payment of compensation within six weeks from the date of judgment. In the case in hand before this court factors which have weighed are that the petitioner in all remained engaged for about 13 years and actually worked for 1392 days as per mandays chart on record and that the services of petitioner were disengaged in September, 2004 who worked as non skilled worker and had raised industrial dispute by issuance of demand notice after about seven years i.e. demand notice was given on 19.12.2011. Taking into consideration factors mentioned above in pursuance to judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above, petitioner would not be entitled either for reinstatement or for back wages but a lump-sum compensation would be appropriate relief in view of judgment 2013 (139) FLR 25 (SC). The judgments relied upon by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner on the matter of delay and laches is more or less settled law that claim of the petitioner could not be solely declined on the ground of delay and laches. Similarly, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in 2014 titled as Raghubir Singh's case also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner as in this judgment also the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the mandate as given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in previous judgment in the year 2013 i.e. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division Kota and Mohan Lal's case. I have gone through these judgments which are not attracted in this present case as this court not declining relief to the petitioner on the ground of limitation rather on the basis of guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court laid down in judgment of 2013.

23. In view of foregoing discussion, a lump-sum compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees one lakh thirty thousand only) would be appropriate relief to which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above. It is further made clear that amount of compensation shall be paid within four months from the date of Award failing which the petitioner would be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from date of Award till its realization. Issues no. 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.4

24. On the plea of non-maintainability of the claim petition under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has failed to allege in reply in what manner petition is not maintainable. Thus, vague plea merits rejection outright. Otherwise also, from pleadings and evidence on record, no inference of claim petition being not maintainable could be raised against claimant/petitioner. This issue is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondent.

RELIEF

25. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, the respondent is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees one lakh thirty thousand only) to the petitioner in lieu 2736 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 of the reinstatement in services as well as the other consequential service benefits. Amount of compensation so awarded will be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within four months from today failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay the interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of award till the date of its realization. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

26. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

27. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette.

28. File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.

Announced in the open Court today this 5th day of May, 2016.

(K. K. Sharma)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal,

Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

___________

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-

CUM-INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA (HP)

Ref. No. : 276/2015

Date of Institution : 13.07.2015

Date of Decision : 05.05.2016

Smt Thuli Devi w/o Shri Bhag Singh, r/o Village Shour, P.O. Purthi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

Executive Engineer, Killar Division, I.&P.H./H.P.P.W.D. Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. . .Respondent.

Reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. O.P. Bhardwaj, Adv.

For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A.

AWARD

The reference given below has been received from the appropriate Government for adjudication:

"Whether the industrial dispute raised by the worker Smt. Thuli Devi W/O Shri Bhag Singh, R/O Village Shour, P.O. Purthi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. before the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, I.&P.H./H.P.P.W.D. Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District2737 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 Chamba, H.P. vide demand notice dated 28.02.2012 regarding her alleged illegal termination of service during August, 2004 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Smt. Thuli Devi W/O Shri Bhag Singh, R/O Village Shour, P.O. Purthi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, I.&P.H./H.P.P.W.D. Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. during August, 2004 without complying 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 aggrieved workman is entitled to from the above employer?"

2. On receipt of reference from appropriate government, notices were issued to the parties in pursuance to which claimant/petitioner has filed statement of claim.

3. Brief facts as enumerated in the present claim petition by the petitioner above named reveal that she had been initially engaged as daily waged beldar on muster roll basis in the year 1996 who continuously worked till October, 2005 with the respondent. Averments made in the petition further revealed that petitioner had worked for 160 days in each calendar year as the criteria prescribed for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil District Chamba and became eligible for continuous service envisaged under statutory provisions of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity). Averments made in the petition revealed that the services of petitioner had interrupted by way of intermittent/artificial breaks given by the respondent/department deliberately and as such breaks are required to be counted as continuous services for the purposes of calculation of 160 days so as for the applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. The grievance of petitioner remains that respondent/department had terminated/disengaged petitioner from daily wage service orally without issuing any one month notice in writing indicating the reason for retrenchment besides no retrenchment compensation was paid to petitioner while respondent had illegally terminated her service. It is contended that respondent had not followed the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act while disengaging the services of petitioner. It is stated that petitioner is very poor and no source of income besides after termination of the services of petitioner, she had approached the respondent time and again but of no avail. Grievance of petitioner further remains that when the services of petitioner have been terminated, respondent/department had reengaged number of new workman from time to time and respondent had not followed the principle of 'Last come, First go' as envisaged under Section 25-G of the Act. It is further alleged that respondent/department had continuously retained junior to petitioner and who are still in service with the respondent namely Suraj Ram who appointed in 1997, Karam Dev in 1997, Bhag Singh in 2000, Ram Dei in 2003, Dev Raj in 2004, Bameshwar Dutt in 2011 and Raj Kumar in 2011. The claimant/petitioner claimed that she had spotless service record who never been charge-sheeted for any act of indiscipline or negligence or her conduct and even at the time of verbal termination, no charge-sheet had been served upon her and the at the same time, no opportunity of hearing had been afforded to him. The petitioner also alleges that she has remained unemployed ever since her illegal termination from month of October, 2005 till the date of institution of present claim petition who had been nowhere gainfully employed and was thus entitled for full back wages. Accordingly alleging respondent to have committed violation of statutory provision of Section 25-F, Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for setting aside oral order of termination/retrenchment by the respondent in the month of October, 2005. She further prayed for reinstatement in service w.e.f. month of October, 2005 along-with back wages, seniority including continuity in service as petitioner has remained unemployed since the date of her illegal termination. The petitioner has also prayed that period of intermittent/fictional breaks given time and again during entire service of petitioner between 1996 to October, 2005 be counted 160 days continuous service and regularization of the 2738 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 service of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2004 having completed 8 years of service and per the policy of HP Govt. in pursuance to law settled by Hon'ble High Court of H.P. and to any other relief petitioner is entitled.

4. The respondent contested claim petition, filed reply inter-alia taken preliminary objections of maintainability, claim petition being bad on account of delay and laches. On merits denied that petitioner had worked for more than 160 days in each calendar year rather clarified by stating that petitioner was engaged as daily waged beldar in 1996 who remained engaged till 2004 but had worked intermittently as petitioner used to come and attend the work at her own sweet will and convenience. Relying upon the mandays chart, it has been categorically pleaded by the respondent that petitioner had not completed 160 days in each calendar year as required for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil. Allegations of fictional breaks given by respondent to the petitioner have been denied. In so far as engagement of persons junior to petitioner mentioned in para no. 10 of the claim petition were appointed as per order of Labour Court and no other juniors to the petitioner had been retained in service by the respondent. On the plea of termination of service of petitioner, respondent specifically alleges that petitioner had left the job at her own will therefore serving of notice or pay in lieu thereof was not required. Reiterating its stand respondent has maintained that petitioner had left the work of her own sweet will and the persons mentioned in para no.10 are stated to have engaged as per direction of the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal Dharamshala and respondent had not violated the principle of 'Last come, First go'. It is also contended that if petitioner had been terminated in 2004 she would have definitely raised industrial dispute immediately and that after seven years petitioner is stated to be agitating the matter which is bad on account of delay and laches. It is also contended that since the services of petitioner had not been terminated by the respondent, question of issuance of notice or wages in lieu thereof did not arise and at the same time, there was no necessity for charge-sheet or issuing any notice of petitioner after her termination. It is contended that petitioner was agriculturist and gainfully employed and was thus not entitled for back wages.

5. The petitioner filed rejoinder, reiterated her stand as maintained in the claim petition. Further asserted that provisions of Limitation Act did not eclipse the claim of petitioner in totality besides allegation of violation of principle of 'Last come First go' was specifically denied.

6. In order to prove her case, petitioner had examined herself as PW1 tendered/proved her affidavit Ex. PW1/A under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, copy of demand notice Ex. PW1/B, copy of reply dated 16.07.2013 Ex. PW1/C, copy of report under Section 12(4) I.D. Act Ex. PW1/D, copy of order dated 30.5.2015 Ex. PW1/E, copy of order dated 28.2.2011 Ex. PW1/F and Ex. PW1/G mandays chart and closed evidence. On the other hand, repudiating the evidence led by the petitioner, respondent examined RW1 Shri Bal Krishan Kapil, the then Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Killar as RW1 tendered/proved mandays chart of petitioner Ex. RW1/B, Ex. RW1/C copy of mandays chart of co-workers, Ex. RW1/C1 to Ex. RW1/C7 copy of orders/awards and closed the evidence.

7. I have heard the ld. counsel of petitioner and ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent, gone through records of the case carefully relevant for disposed of this case.

8. From the contentions raised, following issues were framed on 27.11.2015 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated 28.2.2012 qua her termination of service during August, 2004 by respondent suffers from the vice of delay and laches as alleged? If so, its effect? . .OPP.

2. Whether termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent during August, 2004 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged? ..OPP.

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

4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? . .OPR.

Relief.

9. For the reasons detailed here under, my findings on the above issues are as follows:—

Issue No.1 : Yes

Issue No.2 : Yes

Issue No.3 : Discussed

Issue No.4 : No

Relief. : Petition is partly allowed awarding compensation Rs.1,00,000/- per operative part of award.

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

ISSUES NO.1 TO 3

10. All these issues have been taken up together for discussion being interconnected which can be disposed of simultaneously without repetition of evidence.

11. Relationship of petitioner having been engaged as daily waged beldar by respondent on muster roll basis in the year 1996 continuously worked till October, 2004 with the respondent is not in dispute. Admittedly, petitioner was engaged without any written order or settlement of terms and conditions by the respondent. It is equally not in dispute that no written order was passed while terminating service of the petitioner as claim of respondent remains that it had not retrenched petitioner from service who had abandoned the job of her own and used to work intermittently as per her own wish and convenience. Admittedly, the reference of appropriate govt. does not relate to plea of fictional breaks but only with regard to petitioner's termination from service. In the backdrop of foregoing admitted facts on record, claim of petitioner requires to be adjudicated with a view to determine if petitioner is entitled for relief of reinstatement and back wages along-with seniority and past service benefits and compensation as claimed by him.

12. Stepping into witness box as PW1 has sworn in affidavit Ex. PW1/A reiterating and reaffirming her pleadings as stipulated in claim petition. In her affidavit she has claimed to have worked with the respondent/department for more than 160 days in Pangi Sub Division Chamba District and remained engaged from 1996 to October, 2004. She has also stated on oath that no notice under Section 25- F of the Act was given by the respondent before terminating her service and at the same time no compensation in lieu thereof notice period was paid to her and thus her termination was illegal and void entitling petitioner benefit of reinstatement of service with full back wages and all the other consequential service benefits. The petitioner has further 2740 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 alleged on oath that respondent/department after terminating her services in October, 2004 by oral order had engaged several co-workers who were junior to petitioner were retained in service. Not only this, the persons who were junior to petitioner are stated to have been regularized in service and thus respondent had not followed the mandate of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act which was obligatory on its part. The case of petitioner also remains that she had served respondent with due diligence and had spotless service record as respondent/department had never called any explanation or raised charge-sheet against her but even while retrenching petitioner from service, no notice was given. The petitioner has also explained reason for not approaching the authorities under Labour Act and thereafter before this Tribunal, as there existed no road between Chamba town to Pangi Tehsil till 2012 and petitioner had moved before the Labour Officer raising demand notice consequent upon which a failure report was submitted and as the Labour Commissioner did not make reference for industrial dispute raised by petitioner, the petitioner had moved before the Hon'ble High Court by filing CWP where direction was passed for making reference to the Labour Court due to which delay had occurred and same was satisfactorily explained.

13. In so far as plea of abandonment raised by respondent is concerned, the same merits rejection in view of the fact that respondent had failed to produce any record by which it could be established that whenever petitioner absented from her duty as also reflected in mandays chart Ex. RW1/B any notice or letter was ever issued. On this point respondent as RW1 has specifically admitted that whenever petitioner abandoned the job, no notice had been issued. RW1 specifically admitted that no departmental inquiry was initiated against petitioner even after October, 2004. No reason whatsoever has been assigned for such any action or omission on the part of respondent in not initiating any departmental proceedings or making correspondence calling upon the petitioner to join service. This prima facie belies the stand taken by the respondent as abandonment has to be proved like any other fact in issue. The petitioner, on the other hand, as PW1 in cross-examination has specifically denied that she used to leave the job in between and attended the work intermittently rather she has claimed that intermit breaks had been deliberately given to her by the respondent in the service record of petitioner so that petitioner did not complete 160 days of work as required for Pangi Tehsil area and also for applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. As such, in absence of any specific and reliable evidence led by respondent, it would be unsafe to hold that respondent had established plea of abandonment.

14. A bare glance on the mandays chart Ex. RW1/B would reveal that petitioner had worked for 167 days in the year 1996, 142 days in 1997, 145 days in 1998, 133 days in 1999, 156 days in 2000, 97 days in 2001, 99 days in 2002, 116 days in 2003 and 105 days in 2004 and thus a total of her service in 1996 to 2004 in 9 years she had worked for 1160 days in her entire service period. Be it noticed that except the year 1996 petitioner had not worked for more than 160 days and as there is no reference from the Labour Commissioner, Shimla on the point of artificial breaks, this court is to confine its findings only with regard to alleged illegal termination. It is evident from mandays chart Ex. RW1/B that in the year 2004 the petitioner had merely worked for 105 days and thus immediately in preceding 12 calendar months from the month of termination of petitioner had not rendered service of 160 days so as to meet requirement of law of having continuous service of one year and thus it was not at all required from respondent to have issued a notice envisaged under Section 25-F of the Act. As such, the respondent is held to have not violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

15. Ld. counsel for petitioner has contended with vehemence that large number of workers who were junior to petitioner had been appointed and these workers have been retained in service and regularized. The grievance of petitioner remains that principle of 'Last come First go' was not followed as the juniors were retained and services of petitioner despite2741 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 being senior was terminated without any valid reason. Ex. RW1/C is the year-wise mandays of daily waged workers who were junior to the petitioner and had joined in the year 2000 or thereafter. All of these co-workers shown in Ex. RW1/C the year-wise mandays details of workers of Division HPPWD Killar were certainly junior to petitioner who were given sufficient work existing in those years more than 200 days in a year whereas the petitioner had been not given muster roll for the whole month. Ex. RW1/C also established that all the co- workers shown in this document have worked for more than 160 days in most of the years although they were junior to petitioner. Evidently, there is no iota of evidence of respondent establishing that petitioner was called upon to join for service at any time after October, 2004 even at the time when junior persons were reengaged. That being so the respondent had certainly violated the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act as the juniors workers mentioned in para no.10 of the affidavit were retained whereas petitioner was senior from these co-workers having joined service in 1996 was terminated and even thereafter respondent omitted to afford opportunity to petitioner for reemployment for work which also violates the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of Central Bank of India vs. S. Satyam, 1996 (5) SCC 419 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for the applicability of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act, there was no necessity of claimant/petitioner to have worked for 240 days as in case of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

16. Repudiating claim of petitioner, the respondent, on the other hand, has made futile attempt to justify engagement of junior workers and their retention in service on the basis of orders of Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Court of H.P. as reflected in Ex. RW1/C1 to Ex RW1/C7. These judgments/orders have been gone through which revealed that respondent had wrongly terminated the services of those claimant/petitioner and for said reasons they were directed to be reinstated. Thus, plea that persons were directed to be appointed in pursuance to awards/orders Ext. Rw1/C1 to Ex. RW1/C7 were primarily on the basis of court orders would not defeat the claim of the petitioner as status of these person being junior to petitioner does not get negatived. As such, even when petitioner is proved to have not worked for more than 160 days in preceding 8 years which entitled her for regularization of her service per government policy, yet respondent is not absolved from its accountability of provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act and as such it is held that respondent had violated the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. 17. Ld. counsel for petitioner has contended that after petitioner's termination in October, 2004, she had remained unemployed and was not earning anything thereafter as such was entitled for full back wages. Repudiating the arguments of ld. Authorized Representative of petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. for the State has taken this court through cross-examination of the petitioner who has admitted that she had cultivatable land with her and also worked a private labourer. Thus, plea of having remained not gainfully employed gets belied admission of petitioner in cross-examination in which she had maintained that she had been earning from agricultural land as well as she has been working as daily wager privately. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. M. Nagangouda (2007) 10 SCC 765 in which Division Bench comprising of Justice A.R. Lakshmanan and Justice Altamas Kabir had held that 'term gainfully employment would also include self employment wherefrom income is generated. It was income either from employment in an establishment or from self employment merely differentiates the sources from which income is generated, the end use being the same'. Applying the ratio of judgment of 2007 (supra) to this case since the petitioner was earning from her agricultural and manual pursuits, the same were sufficient to maintain her and her family. It is thus held that petitioner was gainfully employed. Be it stated here that Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase's case has held that the Labour Court was not justified in holding that merely 2742 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 because the respondent was receiving agriculture income, she cannot be treated to be engaged in gainful employment. Since the petitioner had income from agriculture pursuits for her livelihood it cannot be stated that petitioner was not gainfully employed and thus would not be entitled full back wages. In view of the forgoing discussion, it is held that the relationship of workman and employer existed between petitioner and respondent and that petitioner was illegally retrenched without compliance of Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Act although remained gainfully employed after her retrenchment. Thus, applying the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court (2007 supra), it may not be erroneous to hold that petitioner was gainfully employed and thus would be not entitled for back wages for the period she was out of job on being terminated by the respondent.

18. Lastly, Ld. Dy. D.A. for State has contended with vehemence that there is inordinate and explained delay which disentitles petitieonr relief claimed for by him. On the other hand, ld. Authorized Representative for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014 Lab IC 4266 (SC) and the relevant paras of the judgment are produced below for reference:

"12. Therefore, in our considered view, the observations made by this Court in the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board case (supra) upon which the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana has placed reliance cannot be applied to the fact situation of the case on hand, for the reason that the Labour Court has erroneously rejected the reference without judiciously considering all the relevant factors of the case particularly the points of dispute referred to it and answered the 2nd issue regarding the reference being barred by limitation but not on the merits of the case. The said decision has no application to the fact situation and also for the reason the catena of decisions of this Court referred to supra, wherein this Court has categorically held that the provisions of Limitation Act under Article 137 has no application to make reference by the appropriate government to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of existing industrial dispute between workmen and the employer.

13. In the case on hand, no doubt there is a delay in raising the dispute by the appellant; the Labour Court nevertheless has the power to mould the relief accordingly. At the time of adjudication, if the dispute referred to the Labour Court is not adjudicated by it, it does not mean that the dispute ceases to exist. The appropriate government in exercise of its statutory power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act can refer the industrial dispute, between the parties, at any time, to either the jurisdictional Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal as interpreted by this Court in the Avon Services case referred to supra. Therefore, the State Government has rightly exercised its power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act and referred the points of dispute to the Labour Court as the same are in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Avon Services & Sapan Kumar Pandit cases referred to supra.

14. Further, the workman cannot be denied to seek relief only on the

ground of delay in raising the dispute as held in the case of S.M. Nilajkar &

Ors. v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka[4] it was held by this Court as

follows-

"17. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that on account of delay in raising the dispute by the appellants the High Court was justified in denying relief to the appellants. We cannot agree...... In Ratan Chandra Sammanta and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 (supra)1993 AIR SCW 2214, it was held that a casual labourer retrenched by the employer deprives himself of remedy available in law by delay itself, lapse of time results in losing the remedy and the right as well. The delay would certainly be fatal if it has resulted in material evidence relevant to adjudication being lost and rendered not available. However, we do not think that the delay in the case at hand has been so culpable as to disentitle the appellants for any relief....." (Emphasis laid by the Court) In view of the legal principles laid down by this Court in the above judgment, the reference of the industrial dispute made in the case on hand by the State Government to the Labour Court to adjudicate the existing industrial dispute between the parties was made within a reasonable time, considering the circumstances in which the workman was placed, firstly, as there was a criminal case pending against her and secondly, the respondent had assured the workman that she would be reinstated after her acquittal from the criminal case. Moreover, it is reasonable to adjudicate the industrial dispute in spite of the delay in raising and referring the matter, since there is no mention of any loss or unavailability of material evidence due to the delay. Thus, we do not consider the delay in raising the industrial dispute and referring the same to the Labour Court for adjudication as gravely erroneous and it does not debar the workman from claiming rightful relief from her employer.

15. In the case of Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum- Processing Service Society Limited & Anr.[5] this Court has opined that relief cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay, stating that:-

"10. It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labour court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay in shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date she raised the demand regarding her illegal retrenchment/ termination or dismissal. The Court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full back wages....." (Emphasis laid by the Court)

16. Hence, we are of the opinion, having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case that there is no delay or latches on the part of the workman from the date of her acquittal in the criminal case. Thereafter, upon failure of the respondent in adhering to the assurance given to the workman that she would be reinstated after her acquittal from the criminal case, the workman approached the conciliation officer and the State Government to make a reference to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute with regard to the order of dismissal passed by the respondent. Keeping in mind the date of acquittal of the appellant and the date on which she approached the conciliation officer by raising the dispute, since the respondent had not adhered to its assurance, the State Government had rightly referred the dispute for its adjudication. Therefore it cannot be said that there was a delay on the part of the appellant in raising the dispute and getting it referred to the Labour Court by the State Government.

17. Further, the Labour Court on an erroneous assumption of law framed the additional issue regarding the limitation in raising the dispute and its reference by the State Government to the Labour Court. Thus, the Labour Court has ignored the legal principles laid down by this Court in the cases referred to supra. The award2744 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 passed by the Labour Court was accepted erroneously by both the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court by dismissing the Civil Writ Petition & the Letters Patent Appeal without examining the case in its proper perspective, keeping in view the power of the State Government under Section 10(1)(c) and the object and intendment of the Act. Not adjudicating the existing industrial dispute on merits between the parties referred to it may lead to disruption of industrial peace and harmony, which is the foremost important aspect in Industrial Jurisprudence as the same would affect the public interest at large.

19. Ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has also contended with vehemence that claim petition is barred by limitation on account of delay and laches. It has been pointed that termination of petitioner in this case took place on 2004 and the industrial dispute was raised after several years of retrenchment. Repudiating the argument by ld. counsel, ld. AR for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment reported in 2007 LHLJ 903 Hon'ble High Court of H.P. (Bhatag Ram's case) in which it has been held that delay in raising dispute may be considered by court at the time of granting final relief however in various other judgments even longer delay has been condoned. In Divisional Manager, HPFC & another vs. Garibu Ram, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 1160, delay of more than 10 years was condoned besides Hon'ble High Court has held that principle of Limitation Act is not applicable to the industrial dispute. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajayab Singh vs. Sirhind Co- operative Marketing- cum-Processing Society Limited and Another, (1999) 6 SCC 82 in which it has been held that the principle of Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply to the proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act.

20. Relying upon the aforestated judgment, it has been contended that claim of petitioner cannot be defeated on the point of delay and laches. Repudiating arguments advanced by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub- Division Kota and Mohan Lal [2013 (139) FLR 125], the relevant para of the judgment are produced below for reference:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 25-F and 10- Limitation Act, 1963- Section 5- Industrial dispute- Termination of service-Finding of Lboaur Court that workman had completed 240 days in calander year and her termination was in violation o section 25-F of the I.D.Act- Wrokman worked from 1.11.1984 to 17.2.1986 in all 286 days during employment. her services terminated on 18.2.1986. Industrial dispute raised after 6 years of termination. Admitted delay of 6 years not kept in view by the Labour Court- Judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court flawed and unsustainable. Reinstatement of the workman not the appropriate relief. In lieu of reinstatement compensation of Rs.one lac directed to be paid to the workman by the appellant- employer within six weeks failing which interest @ workman 9% p.a. will be payable. [Paras 21 and 22] Limitation Act, 1963. Section 5- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Section 25-F- Termination of service- Industrial dispute raised after six years- Limitation Act not applicable to reference made under the I.D. Act-Delay in raising industrial disputes definitely an important circumstances which the Labour Court must keep in view before granting relief".

21. Repudiating the arguments by ld. Dy. D.A. for the State, ld. counsel for claimant/petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Tapash2745 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 Kumar Paul vs. BSNL & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 357 wherein Hon'ble Court held that a Court may pass an order of reinstatement by awarding compensation but the same has to be based on justifiable grounds. In this judgment, it was held that compensation can be granted in a situation where the industry is closed or that employees has superannuated or going to retire shortly and no period is left to his credit or where workman has been rendered in capacitated to discharge duties cannot be reinstated and/or fourthly when he has lost confidence of the management to discharge duties. It was observed that there may be appropriate cases on facts which may justify substituting an order of reinstatement by award of compensation but that has to be supported by some legal and justifiable reasons indicating why the reinstatement should be followed to be substituted by award of compensation. Ld. counsel for the petitioner with the aid of above-said judgment had argued that there are only four situations when a worker may be awarded compensation instead of reinstatement but the judgment has certainly not been correctly appreciated by ld. counsel as this judgment postulates probable four situations which are illustrate in nature where compensation may be awarded instead of reinstatement but that does not mean that except the four grounds, no other ground would be appropriate for awarding compensation. In the case in hand before this court, it has come that petitioner had abandoned the job who did not report for duty for several years and later gave notice requesting for joining of duties but the conditions in para no.5 of judgment (2015 supra) even if not met requirement, cannot be a ground to reinstate the petitioner and it is only compensation which would be appropriate relief. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'be Apex Court titled as Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and Ors. reported in AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 121, Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014(3) Apex Court Judgments 652. I have gone through these judgments and of view that they don't come to rescue the petitioner on point of reinstatement instead of compensation. Ld. Dy. D.A. for State on the other hand has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh v. Akhilesh Kumar Khare & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 3473. It has been contended that engagement of claimant/petitioner in this case was not through regular mode of recruitment and applying the ratio of this judgment AIR 2015 SC supra, claim of petitioner for reinstatement can be negated and thus compensation would be sufficient for redressal of grievance of the claimant/petitioner. Similarly, in 2016 (1) Him. L.R. 502 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Chaman Singh relied by ld. AR for petitioner interpretation of Section 137 of Limitation Act was involved which provides that Article 137 of Limitation Act did not apply to industrial disputes. In 2014 (3) Apex Court Judgment 652 (SC) similar view was reiterated which clearly mandates that claimant/petitioner cannot be denied relief sought for merely on the ground of delay and laches. That being so, the law remains as it was that ground of delay and laches, claimant/petitioner cannot be denied relief rather the court has to consider various aspects before moulding relief and the case in hand it would not be erroneous to mention here that the claimant/petitioner can be reasonably indemnified by ordering compensation and not by reinstatement. In so far as judgment of AIR 2015 SC 1373 titled as Mackinon Machenize & Company Ltd. vs. Mackinon Employees Union is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held on closure of unit of company principle of 'Last come First go' was not followed which violated Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act and retrenchment was held illegal entitling petitioner for retrenchment compensation. Since the facts of case of Mackinon Machenize's case are different from case in hand as in former closure of unit of company was involved whereas in case in hand before this court, there is no closure of company rather it is the department of HPPWD which had engaged petitioner without following of the procedure although subject to funds and availability of work but in the case in hand petitioner had abandoned the job who never reported for duty. As such, when there is no closure of any unit by respondent which the petitioner was engaged, judgment of Mackinon Machenize cannot be made applicable.

2746 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 22. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and case law relied by them, it can be safely concluded that delay in raising industrial dispute is certainly important aspect/circumstance which court has to keep in mind while exercising discretion. In para nos. 20 and 21 of the judgment as referred to in this case reported in 2013 (136) FLR 893 (SC) titled as Assistant Engineer Rajasthan Development Corporation and another vs. Geetam Singh provides that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court or Tribunal has to keep in mind all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment (2013 supra) before that workman had worked for 286 days and had raised industrial dispute in 1992 whereas her services have been terminated in 1986 and she raised industrial dispute after six years. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that though compensation awarded by Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court was too low and liable to be enhanced by the Division Bench but surely reinstatement of the workman in the facts and circumstances is not the appropriate relief and thus Hon'ble Apex Court awarded a lump-sum of Rs.1 lakh along-with interest @ 9% per annum if the respondent failed to make payment of compensation within six weeks from the date of judgment. In the case in hand before this court factors which have weighed are that the petitioner in all remained engaged for about 9 years and actually worked for 1160 days as per mandays chart on record and that the services of petitioner were disengaged in October, 2004 who worked as non skilled worker and had raised industrial dispute by issuance of demand notice after about nine years i.e. demand notice was given on 28.2.2012. Taking into consideration factors mentioned above in pursuance to judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above, petitioner would not be entitled either for reinstatement or for back wages but a lump-sum compensation would be appropriate relief in view of judgment 2013 (139) FLR 25 (SC). The judgments relied upon by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner on the matter of delay and laches is more or less settled law that claim of the petitioner could not be solely declined on the ground of delay and laches. Similarly, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in 2014 titled as Raghubir Singh's case also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner as in this judgment also the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the mandate as given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in previous judgment in the year 2013 i.e. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub- Division Kota and Mohan Lal's case. I have gone through these judgments which are not attracted in this present case as this court not declining relief to the petitioner on the ground of limitation rather on the basis of guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court laid down in judgment of 2013.

23. In view of foregoing discussion, a lump-sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) would be appropriate relief to which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above. It is further made clear that amount of compensation shall be paid within four months from the date of Award failing which the petitioner would be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from date of Award till its realization. Issues no. 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO. 4

24. On the plea of non-maintainability of the claim petition under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has failed to allege in reply in what manner petition is not maintainable. Thus, vague plea merits rejection outright. Otherwise also, from pleadings and evidence on record, no inference of claim petition being not maintainable could be raised against claimant/petitioner. This issue is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondent.

25. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, the respondent is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the petitioner in lieu of the reinstatement in services as well as the other consequential service benefits. Amount of compensation so awarded will be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within four months from today failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay the interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of award till the date of its realization. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

26. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

27. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette.

28. File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.

Announced in the open Court today this 5th day of May, 2016.

(K. K. Sharma) Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal,

Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

____________

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-

CUM- INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

Ref: No. 90/ 2015

Smt. Sarla Devi w/o Late Shri Phandi Ram, r/o V.P.O. Dhameta, Tehsil Fatehpur, Distt. Kangra, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

The Principal, Government Senior Secondary School Dhameta, Tehsil Fatehpur, Distt. Kangra, H.P.

05-05-2016 Present: None for the petitioner. . .Respondent.

Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy.D.A. for the respondent.

Case called several times but none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite due knowledge. It is 11.45 A.M. Be awaited and put up after lunch hours.

(K.K.Sharma)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

2748 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 05-05-2016 Present: None for the petitioner.

Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy.D.A. for the respondent.

Case has been called again several times but none has appeared on behalf of petitioner. It is 3.45 P.M. None appearance of petitioner or her ld. counsel today is indicative of the fact that he is not interested to pursue present reference/claim petition and accordingly reference is disposed of for non-prosecution.

Reference is answered in the aforesaid terms. The parties to bear their own costs.

Let copy of the Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for information and further necessary action / publication. The file, after completion be consigned to the records.

Announced: 05-05-2016 (K.K.Sharma), Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

___________

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-

CUM- INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

Ref: No. 285/ 2014

Sh. Thakur Singh s/o Shri Bhagat Ram, r/o Village Gadhyara, P.O.Golwan, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

The Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.

. .Respondent. 05-05-2016 Present: None for the petitioner.

Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy.D.A. for the respondent.

Case called several times but none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite due knowledge. It is 11.20 A.M. Be awaited and put up after lunch hours.

(K. K.Sharma)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy.D.A. for the respondent.

Case has been called again several times but none has appeared on behalf of petitioner. It is 3.10 P.M. None appearance of petitioner or his ld. counsel today is indicative of the fact that he is not interested to pursue present reference/claim petition and accordingly reference is disposed of for non-prosecution.

Reference is answered in the aforesaid terms. The parties to bear their own costs.

Let copy of the Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for information and further necessary action / publication. The file, after completion be consigned to the records.

Announced: 05-05-2016

(K. K. Sharma)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

____________

IN THE COURT OF K. K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-

CUM- INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

Ref: No. 307/ 2014

Smt. Phulla Devi w/o Shri Gusaun Ram, r/o V.P.O. Khaddar, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

The Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.

. .Respondent. 05-05-2016 Present: None for the petitioner. Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy.D.A. for the respondent.

Case called several times but none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite due knowledge. It is 11.30 A.M. Be awaited and put up after lunch hours.

(K. K. Sharma) Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

2750 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 05-05-2016 Present: None for the petitioner.

Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy.D.A. for the respondent.

Case has been called again several times but none has appeared on behalf of petitioner. It is 3.20 P.M. None appearance of petitioner or her ld. counsel today is indicative of the fact that he is not interested to pursue present reference/claim petition and accordingly reference is disposed of for non-prosecution.

Reference is answered in the aforesaid terms. The parties to bear their own costs.

Let copy of the Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for information and further necessary action / publication. The file, after completion be consigned to the records.

Announced: 05-05-2016

(K.K.Sharma)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

__________

IN THE COURT OF K. K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-

CUM- INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

Ref: No. 319/ 2014

Sh. Rati Ram s/o Shri Ram Charan Dass, r/o Village Patta Bharol, P.O. Lad Bharol, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

The Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.

. .Respondent. 05-05-2016 Present: None for the petitioner.

Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy.D.A. for the respondent.

Case called several times but none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite due knowledge. It is 11.22 A.M. Be awaited and put up after lunch hours.

(K. K. Sharma) Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy.D.A. for the respondent.

Case has been called again several times but none has appeared on behalf of petitioner. It is 3.15 P.M. None appearance of petitioner or his ld. counsel today is indicative of the fact that he is not interested to pursue present reference/claim petition and accordingly reference is disposed of for non-prosecution.

Reference is answered in the aforesaid terms. The parties to bear their own costs.

Let copy of the Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for information and further necessary action / publication. The file, after completion be consigned to the records.

Announced: 05-05-2016

(K. K. Sharma)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

__________

IN THE COURT OF K. K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-

CUM- INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

Ref: No. 327/ 2014

Smt. Leela Devi w/o Shri Bidhi Singh, r/o Village Matker, P.O. Drahal, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

The Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.

. .Respondent. 05-05-2016 Present: None for the petitioner. Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A. for the respondent.

Case called several times but none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite due knowledge. It is 11.42 A.M. Be awaited and put up after lunch hours.

(K.K.Sharma)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

2752 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 05-05-2016 Present: None for the petitioner.

Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy.D.A. for the respondent.

Case has been called again several times but none has appeared on behalf of petitioner. It is 3.32 P.M. None appearance of petitioner or her ld. counsel today is indicative of the fact that he is not interested to pursue present reference/claim petition and accordingly reference is disposed of for non-prosecution.

Reference is answered in the aforesaid terms. The parties to bear their own costs.

Let copy of the Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for information and further necessary action / publication. The file, after completion be consigned to the records.

Announced: 05-05-2016

(K.K.Sharma)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

__________

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-

CUM- INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

Ref: No. 354/ 2014

Smt. Geeta Devi w/o Shri Rattan Chand, r/o V.P.O. Karsal, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

The Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.

. .Respondent. 05-05-2016 Present: None for the petitioner. Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy.D.A. for the respondent.

Case called several times but none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite due knowledge. It is 11.43 A.M. Be awaited and put up after lunch hours.

(K. K. Sharma)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy.D.A. for the respondent.

Case has been called again several times but none has appeared on behalf of petitioner. It is 3.33 P.M. None appearance of petitioner or her ld. counsel today is indicative of the fact that he is not interested to pursue present reference/claim petition and accordingly reference is disposed of for non-prosecution.

Reference is answered in the aforesaid terms. The parties to bear their own costs.

Let copy of the Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for information and further necessary action / publication. The file, after completion be consigned to the records.

Announced: 05-05-2016

(K. K.Sharma)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

_____________

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-

CUM- INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

Ref: No. 384/ 2014

Smt. Masti Devi w/o Shri Kanshi Ram, r/o Village Nihar, P.O. Gangoti, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

The Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.

. .Respondent. 05-05-2016 Present: None for the petitioner. Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy.D.A. for the respondent.

Case called several times but none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite due knowledge. It is 11.43 A.M. Be awaited and put up after lunch hours.

(K. K. Sharma)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

2754 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 05-05-2016 Present: None for the petitioner.

Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy.D.A. for the respondent.

Case has been called again several times but none has appeared on behalf of petitioner. It is 3.35 P.M. None appearance of petitioner or her ld. counsel today is indicative of the fact that he is not interested to pursue present reference/claim petition and accordingly reference is disposed of for non-prosecution.

Reference is answered in the aforesaid terms. The parties to bear their own costs.

Let copy of the Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for information and further necessary action / publication. The file, after completion be consigned to the records.

Announced: 05-05-2016

(K. K.Sharma)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

____________

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

Ref: No. 225/ 2015

Sh. Soni Kumar s/o Shri Mohan Singh, r/o Village Matha Thana, P.O. Panjalag, Tehsil Ladbharol, District Mandi, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

The Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.

. .Respondent. 05-05-2016 Present: None for the petitioner.

Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy.D.A. for the respondent.

Case called several times but none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite due knowledge. It is 11.25 A.M. Be awaited and put up after lunch hours.

(K. K. Sharma)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy.D.A. for the respondent.

Case has been called again several times but none has appeared on behalf of petitioner. It is 3.17 P.M. None appearance of petitioner or his ld. counsel today is indicative of the fact that he is not interested to pursue present reference/claim petition and accordingly reference is disposed of for non-prosecution. Reference is answered in the aforesaid terms. The parties to bear their own costs.

Let copy of the Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for information and further necessary action / publication. The file, after completion be consigned to the records.

Announced: 05-05-2016

(K.K.Sharma)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

___________

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-

CUM- INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

Ref: No. 35/ 2015

Sh. Jagdish Chand s/o Shri Krishan Chand, r/o Village Sanali, P.O. Tullah, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

The Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.

. .Respondent. 05-05-2016 Present: None for the petitioner.

Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy.D.A. for the respondent.

Case called several times but none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite due knowledge. It is 11.27 A.M. Be awaited and put up after lunch hours.

(K.K.Sharma) Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

2756 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 05-05-2016 Present: None for the petitioner.

Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy.D.A. for the respondent.

Case has been called again several times but none has appeared on behalf of petitioner. It is 3.18 P.M. None appearance of petitioner or his ld. counsel today is indicative of the fact that he is not interested to pursue present reference/claim petition and accordingly reference is disposed of for non-prosecution.

Reference is answered in the aforesaid terms. The parties to bear their own costs.

Let copy of the Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for information and further necessary action / publication. The file, after completion be consigned to the records.

Announced: 05-05-2016

(K.K.Sharma)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

____________

IN THE COURT OF K. K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-

CUM- INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

Ref: No. 223/ 2015

Sh. Durjan Singh s/o Shri Jaisi Ram, r/o Village Bharan, P.O. Ootpur, Tehsil Ladbharol, District Mandi, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

The Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.

. .Respondent. 05-05-2016 Present: None for the petitioner.

Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy.D.A. for the respondent.

Case called several times but none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite due knowledge. It is 11.28 A.M. Be awaited and put up after lunch hours.

(K. K. Sharma) Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy.D.A. for the respondent.

Case has been called again several times but none has appeared on behalf of petitioner. It is 3.19 P.M. None appearance of petitioner or his ld. counsel today is indicative of the fact that he is not interested to pursue present reference/claim petition and accordingly reference is disposed of for non-prosecution.

Reference is answered in the aforesaid terms. The parties to bear their own costs.

Let copy of the Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for information and further necessary action / publication. The file, after completion be consigned to the records.

Announced: 05-05-2016

(K. K. Sharma) Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

_____________

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-

CUM-INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA (HP)

Ref. No. : 320/2015

Date of Institution : 21.07.2015

Date of Decision : 06.05.2016

Smt. Vyasa Devi w/o Shri Shyam Lal, r/o Village Baral, P.O. Baroti, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. . . Petitioner.

Versus

Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division, Dharampur, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. . .Respondent.

Reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. N.L. Kaundal, AR : Sh. Vijay Kaundal, Adv.

For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A.

AWARD

The reference given below has been received from the appropriate Government for adjudication:

2758 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 "Whether the industrial dispute raised by the worker Smt. Vyasa Devi W/O Shri Shyam Lal, R/O Village Baral, P.O. Baroti, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. before the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division, Dharampur, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. vide demand notice dated 26.09.2009 regarding her alleged illegal termination of service w.e.f. 09.02.2004 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Smt. Vyasa Devi W/O Shri Shyam Lal, R/O Village Baral, P.O. Baroti, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division, Dharampur, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. w.e.f. 09.02.2004 without complying 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 aggrieved workman is entitled to from the above employer?" 2. On receipt of reference from appropriate government, notices were issued to the parties in pursuance to which claimant/petitioner has filed statement of claim.

3. Brief facts leading to institution of the present claim petition by the petitioner above named reveal that she had been engaged as daily waged beldar on muster roll basis w.e.f. December, 1998 who continuously worked till 8.2.2004 who had completed 240 days of work in each calendar year and who thus duly covered under the definition of "continuous service" as envisaged under Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity). Averments made in the petition further revealed that the services of petitioner had been illegally terminated by the respondent in the month of February, 2004 along-with 1697 daily wager workman and before terminating the services of petitioner she had been paid retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F of the Act. It is stated that at the time of termination of the services of petitioner along-with other workmen, respondent had not followed the principle of 'Last come First go' and persons junior to petitioner namely S/Subhash Chand, Shashi Kant and Bidhi Chand etc. were retained in service by the respondent and had thus violated the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act. After the termination of petitioner's services and the other workmen numbering 1697, in the months of June and July, 2004, some of the workmen had been re-engaged by the respondent and petitioner was not given an opportunity of re-employment. In the month of December, 2004, she approached the respondent to provide her the work on the basis of her seniority but the respondent did not assure her job or say reengagement due to surplus labour. The respondent/department further told petitioner that the retrenchment process of the other workmen who are surplus is still continuing because of which she cannot be re-engaged. It is averred that respondent had reinstated 500 workmen in pursuance to order passed by this Tribunal who were paid 50% back wages with all consequential service benefits including seniority. Thereafter, several persons namely S/Sh. Vijay Kumar Megh Singh and Sanjay Kumar were reengaged but petitioner was not offered opportunity of reemployment and thus act of respondent reengaging the juniors and ignoring the claimant who was senior was illegally and highly unjustified which was in contravention of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act. The grievance of petitioner also remains that ever since her date of illegal termination she had been unemployed and she has thus prayed for setting aside illegal termination order passed by the respondent in 2004 with direction to respondent to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages, seniority and continuity in service with all consequential benefits. The petitioner further prayed for regularization of service as per policy framed by the government besides litigation costs of Rs.5000/-.

4. The respondent contested claim petition, filed reply inter-alia taken preliminary objections of maintainability, delay and laches. On merits denied that the services of petitioner were engaged as daily waged beldar on July, 1998 and she worked upto December, 19982759 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 intermittently. It is alleged that petitioner had left the work of her own sweet will who had not completed 240 days of work in each calendar year. It is stated that if the petitioner had abandoned the work of her own convenience in the month of May, 2004 there was no violation of any provisions of the Act. It is stated that during the years 2005, 1087 workers had been retrenched but the services of petitioner were not terminated because she had already abandoned the job of her own sweet will in the month of February, 2004. It is further stated that petitioner had raised demand notice in the year 2009 i.e. after about 5 years from her termination and never approached the respondent/department after her retrenchment. It is also contended that since the services of petitioner had not been terminated by the respondent, question of issuance of notice or wages in lieu thereof did not arise and at the same time, there was no necessity for charge-sheet or issuing any notice of petitioner after her termination. It is contended that petitioner was agriculturist and gainfully employed and was thus not entitled for back wages.

5. The petitioner filed rejoinder, reiterated her stand as maintained in the claim petition.

6. In order to prove her case, petitioner had examined herself as PW1 tendered/proved her affidavit Ex. PW1/A under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, Ex. PW1/B copy of demand notice dated 26.9.2009, Ex. PW1/C copy of judgment of Hon'ble High Court dated 27.5.2015 and closed evidence. On the other hand, repudiating the evidence led by the petitioner, respondent examined RW1 Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta, the then Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Dharampur as RW1 tendered/proved his affidavit Ex. RW1/A and mandays chart Ex. RW1/B and closed the evidence.

7. I have heard the ld. Authorized Representative/counsel of petitioner and ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent, gone through records of the case carefully relevant for disposed of this case.

8. From the contentions raised, following issues were framed on 30.11.2015 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated 26.9.2009 qua her termination of service w.e.f. 09-02-2004 by respondent suffers from the vice of delay and laches as alleged? If so, its effect? . .OPP.

2. Whether termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. 09-02-2004 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged? . .OPP.

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

4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form? . . OPR.

Relief.

9. For the reasons detailed here under, my findings on the above issues are as follows:—

Issue No.1 : Yes

Issue No.2 : Yes

Issue No.3 : Discussed2760 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 Issue No.4 : No Relief. : Petition is partly allowed awarding compensation Rs.1,00,000/- per operative part of award.

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

ISSUES NO.1, 2 AND 3

10. All these issues have been taken up together for discussion being interconnected which can be disposed of simultaneously without repetition of evidence.

11. Relationship of petitioner having been engaged as daily waged beldar by respondent on muster roll basis in the year 1998 who continuously worked till 2004 at HPPWD Division Dharampur is not in dispute. Admittedly, petitioner was engaged without any written order or settlement of terms and conditions by the respondent. It is equally not in dispute that no written order was passed while terminating service of the petitioner as claim of respondent remains that it had not retrenched petitioner from service who had abandoned the job of her own and used to work intermittently as per her own wish and convenience. Admittedly, the reference of appropriate govt. does not relate to plea of fictional breaks but only with regard to petitioner's termination from service. In the backdrop of foregoing admitted facts on record, claim of petitioner requires to be adjudicated with a view to determine if petitioner is entitled for relief of reinstatement and back wages along-with seniority and past service benefits and compensation as claimed by him.

12. Stepping into witness box as PW1 has sworn in affidavit Ex. PW1/A reiterating and reaffirming her pleadings as stipulated in claim petition. In her affidavit she has claimed to have worked with the respondent/department for more than 240 days in Dharampur Division Mandi District and remained engaged from 1998 to 2004. She has also stated on oath that no notice under Section 25-F of the Act was given by the respondent before terminating her service and at the same time no compensation in lieu thereof notice period was paid to her and thus her termination was illegal and void entitling petitioner benefit of reinstatement of service with full back wages and all the other consequential service benefits. The petitioner has further alleged on oath that respondent/department after terminating her services in February, 2004 by oral order had engaged several co-workers who were junior to petitioner were retained in service. Not only this, the persons who were junior to petitioner are stated to have been regularized in service and thus respondent had not followed the mandate of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act which was obligatory on its part. The case of petitioner also remains that she had served respondent with due diligence and had spotless service record as respondent/department had never called any explanation or raised charge-sheet against her but even while retrenching petitioner from service, no notice was given. He admitted that petitioner had not given any representation to the respondent/department w.e.f. 2004 to 2009. He denied that she had left the work of her own sweet will after December, 2001. He further denied that no juniors had been kept by the respondent. He admitted that demand notice was given by petitioner in the year 2009. He admitted that petitioner worked on privately for her livelihood.

13. In so far as plea of abandonment raised by respondent is concerned, the same merits rejection in view of the fact that respondent had failed to produce any record by which it could be established that whenever petitioner absented from her duty as also reflected in mandays chart Ex. RW1/B any notice or letter was ever issued. On this point respondent as RW1 has specifically admitted that whenever petitioner abandoned the job, no notice had been issued. RW1 specifically admitted that no departmental inquiry was initiated against petitioner2761 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 even after February, 2004. No reason whatsoever has been assigned for such any action or omission on the part of respondent in not initiating any departmental proceedings or making correspondence calling upon the petitioner to join service. This prima facie belies the stand taken by the respondent as abandonment has to be proved like any other fact in issue. The petitioner, on the other hand, as PW1 in cross-examination has specifically denied that she used to leave the job in between and attended the work intermittently rather she has claimed that intermittent breaks had been deliberately given to her by the respondent in the service record of petitioner so that petitioner did not complete 240 days of work as required and also for applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. As such, in absence of any specific and reliable evidence led by respondent, it would be unsafe to hold that respondent had established plea of abandonment.

14. A bare glance on the mandays chart Ex. RW1/B would reveal that petitioner had worked for 34 days in the year 1998, 320.5 days in 1999, 339 days in 2000, 235.5 days in 2001, 253.5 days in 2002, 304 days in 2003 and 56 days in 2004 and thus a total of her service in 1998 to 2004 petitioner had worked for 1541 days in her entire service period. Be it noticed that from the mandays chart referred to above if the petitioner has actually worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months from date of her termination as the mandays chart nowhere shown the month till when petitioner worked and therefore no inference of her work in preceding 12 months can be raised. The burden of proof was on the petitioner who has not been duly proved and adverse inference withdrawn and on the said reason petitioner is held to have violation of Section 25-F on the part of the respondent. The petitioner had not worked for more than 240 days and as there is no reference from the Labour Commissioner, Shimla on the point of artificial breaks, this court is to confine its findings only with regard to alleged illegal termination. It is evident from mandays chart Ex. RW1/B that in the year 2004 the petitioner had merely worked for 56 days and thus immediately in preceding 12 calendar months from the month of termination of petitioner had not rendered service of 240 days so as to meet requirement of law of having continuous service of one year and thus it was not at all required from respondent to have issued a notice envisaged under Section 25-F of the Act. As such, the respondent is held to have not violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

15. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has contended with vehemence that large number of workers who were junior to petitioner had been appointed and these workers have been retained in service and regularized. The grievance of petitioner remains that principle of 'Last come First go' was not followed as the juniors were retained and services of petitioner despite being senior was terminated without any valid reason. In para no.3 of the affidavit, petitioner has mentioned junior person namely Subhash Chand, Shasi Kant, Bidhi Chand, Inder Singh, Ajay Kumar, and Smt. Roshani Devi who have been engaged after her who are still continuing in job and regularized as per version of respondent as RW1 who has specifically admitted that although above workers were junior to petitioner and still working with the department whereas petitioner has been terminated. Evidently, there is no iota of evidence of respondent establishing that petitioner was called upon to join for service at any time after February, 2002 even at the time when junior persons were reengaged. That being so the respondent had certainly violated the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act as the juniors workers mentioned in the affidavit were retained whereas petitioner was senior from these co-workers having joined service in 1998 was terminated and even thereafter respondent omitted to afford opportunity to petitioner for reemployment for work which also violates the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of Central Bank of India vs. S. Satyam, 1996 (5) SCC 419 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for the applicability of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act, there was no necessity of claimant/petitioner to have worked for 240 days as in case of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

2762 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 16. Repudiating claim of petitioner, the respondent, on the other hand, has made futile attempt to justify engagement of junior workers and their retention in service on the basis of orders of Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Court of H.P. These judgments/orders have been gone through which revealed that respondent had wrongly terminated the services of those claimant/petitioner and for said reasons they were directed to be reinstated. As such, even when petitioner is proved to have not worked for more than 240 days in preceding 01 year which entitled her for regularization of her service per government policy, yet respondent is not absolved from its accountability of provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act and as such it is held that respondent had violated the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act.

17. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has contended that after petitioner's termination in February, 2004 she had remained unemployed and was not earning anything thereafter as such was entitled for full back wages. Repudiating the arguments of ld. Authorized Representative of petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. for the State has taken this court through cross-examination of the petitioner who has admitted that she had cultivatable land with her and also worked a private labourer. Thus, plea of having remained not gainfully employed gets belied admission of petitioner in cross-examination in which she had maintained that she had been earning from agricultural land as well as she has been working as daily wager privately. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. M. Nagangouda (2007) 10 SCC 765 in which Division Bench comprising of Justice A.R. Lakshmanan and Justice Altamas Kabir had held that 'term gainfully employment would also include self employment wherefrom income is generated. It was income either from employment in an establishment or from self employment merely differentiates the sources from which income is generated, the end use being the same'. Applying the ratio of judgment of 2007 (supra) to this case since the petitioner was earning from her agricultural and manual pursuits, the same were sufficient to maintain her and her family. It is thus held that petitioner was gainfully employed. Be it stated here that Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase's case has held that the Labour Court was not justified in holding that merely because the respondent was receiving agriculture income, she cannot be treated to be engaged in gainful employment. Since the petitioner had income from agriculture pursuits for her livelihood it cannot be stated that petitioner was not gainfully employed and thus would not be entitled full back wages. In view of the forgoing discussion, it is held that the relationship of workman and employer existed between petitioner and respondent and that petitioner was illegally retrenched without compliance of Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Act although remained gainfully employed after her retrenchment. Thus, applying the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court (2007 supra), it may not be erroneous to hold that petitioner was gainfully employed and thus would be not entitled for back wages for the period she was out of job on being terminated by the respondent.

18. Lastly, Ld. Dy. D.A. for State has contended with vehemence that there is inordinate and explained delay which disentitles petitioner relief claimed for by him. On the other hand, ld. Authorized Representative for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014 Lab IC 4266 (SC) and the relevant paras of the judgment are produced below for reference:

"12. Therefore, in our considered view, the observations made by this Court in the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board case (supra) upon which the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana has placed reliance cannot be applied to the fact situation of the case on hand, for the reason that the Labour Court has erroneously rejected the reference without judiciously considering all the relevant2763 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 factors of the case particularly the points of dispute referred to it and answered the 2nd issue regarding the reference being barred by limitation but not on the merits of the case. The said decision has no application to the fact situation and also for the reason the catena of decisions of this Court referred to supra, wherein this Court has categorically held that the provisions of Limitation Act under Article 137 has no application to make reference by the appropriate government to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of existing industrial dispute between workmen and the employer.

13. In the case on hand, no doubt there is a delay in raising the dispute by the appellant; the Labour Court nevertheless has the power to mould the relief accordingly. At the time of adjudication, if the dispute referred to the Labour Court is not adjudicated by it, it does not mean that the dispute ceases to exist. The appropriate government in exercise of its statutory power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act can refer the industrial dispute, between the parties, at any time, to either the jurisdictional Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal as interpreted by this Court in the Avon Services case referred to supra. Therefore, the State Government has rightly exercised its power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act and referred the points of dispute to the Labour Court as the same are in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Avon Services & Sapan Kumar Pandit cases referred to supra.

14. Further, the workman cannot be denied to seek relief only on the ground of

delay in raising the dispute as held in the case of S.M. Nilajkar & Ors. v. Telecom

District Manager, Karnataka[4] it was held by this Court as follows-

"17. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that on account of delay in raising the dispute by the appellants the High Court was justified in denying relief to the appellants. We cannot agree...... In Ratan Chandra Sammanta and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra)1993 AIR SCW 2214, it was held that a casual labourer retrenched by the employer deprives herself of remedy available in law by delay itself, lapse of time results in losing the remedy and the right as well. The delay would certainly be fatal if it has resulted in material evidence relevant to adjudication being lost and rendered not available. However, we do not think that the delay in the case at hand has been so culpable as to disentitle the appellants for any relief....." (Emphasis laid by the Court) In view of the legal principles laid down by this Court in the above judgment, the reference of the industrial dispute made in the case on hand by the State Government to the Labour Court to adjudicate the existing industrial dispute between the parties was made within a reasonable time, considering the circumstances in which the workman was placed, firstly, as there was a criminal case pending against her and secondly, the respondent had assured the workman that she would be reinstated after her acquittal from the criminal case. Moreover, it is reasonable to adjudicate the industrial dispute in spite of the delay in raising and referring the matter, since there is no mention of any loss or unavailability of material evidence due to the delay. Thus, we do not consider the delay in raising the industrial dispute and referring the same to the Labour Court for adjudication as gravely erroneous and it does not debar the workman from claiming rightful relief from her employer.

15. In the case of Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum- Processing Service Society Limited & Anr.[5] this Court has opined that relief cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay, stating that:—

"10. It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the act and that the relief under it2764 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labour court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay in shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date she raised the demand regarding her illegal retrenchment/ termination or dismissal. The Court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full back wages....." (Emphasis laid by the Court)

16. Hence, we are of the opinion, having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case that there is no delay or latches on the part of the workman from the date of her acquittal in the criminal case. Thereafter, upon failure of the respondent in adhering to the assurance given to the workman that she would be reinstated after her acquittal from the criminal case, the workman approached the conciliation officer and the State Government to make a reference to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute with regard to the order of dismissal passed by the respondent. Keeping in mind the date of acquittal of the appellant and the date on which she approached the conciliation officer by raising the dispute, since the respondent had not adhered to its assurance, the State Government had rightly referred the dispute for its adjudication. Therefore it cannot be said that there was a delay on the part of the appellant in raising the dispute and getting it referred to the Labour Court by the State Government.

17. Further, the Labour Court on an erroneous assumption of law framed the additional issue regarding the limitation in raising the dispute and its reference by the State Government to the Labour Court. Thus, the Labour Court has ignored the legal principles laid down by this Court in the cases referred to supra. The award passed by the Labour Court was accepted erroneously by both the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court by dismissing the Civil Writ Petition & the Letters Patent Appeal without examining the case in its proper perspective, keeping in view the power of the State Government under Section 10(1)(c) and the object and intendment of the Act. Not adjudicating the existing industrial dispute on merits between the parties referred to it may lead to disruption of industrial peace and harmony, which is the foremost important aspect in Industrial Jurisprudence as the same would affect the public interest at large.

19. Ld. counsel representing respondent department has also contended with vehemence that claim petition is barred by limitation on account of delay and laches. It has been pointed that termination of petitioner in this case took place on 2004 and the industrial dispute was raised after several years of retrenchment. Repudiating the argument by ld. counsel, ld. AR for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment reported in 2007 LHLJ 903 Hon'ble High Court of H.P. (Bhatag Ram's case) in which it has been held that delay in raising dispute may be considered by court at the time of granting final relief however in various other judgments even longer delay has been condoned. In Divisional Manager, HPFC & another vs. Garibu Ram, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 1160, delay of more than 10 years was condoned besides Hon'ble High Court has held that principle of Limitation Act is not applicable to the industrial dispute. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajayab Singh vs. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing- cum-Processing Society Limited and Another, (1999) 6 SCC 82 in which it has been held that the principle of Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply to the proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act.

20. Relying upon the aforestated judgment, it has been contended that claim of petitioner cannot be defeated on the point of delay and laches. Repudiating arguments advanced by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub- Division Kota and Mohan Lal [2013 (139) FLR 125], the relevant para of the judgment are produced below for reference:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 25-F and 10- Limitation Act, 1963- Section 5- Industrial dispute- Termination of service-Finding of Lboaur Court that workman had completed 240 days in calander year and her termination was in violation o section 25-F of the I.D.Act- Wrokman worked from 1.11.1984 to 17.2.1986 in all 286 days during employment. her services terminated on 18.2.1986. Industrial dispute raised after 6 years of termination. Admitted delay of 6 years not kept in view by the Labour Court- Judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court flawed and unsustainable. Reinstatement of the workman not the appropriate relief. In lieu of reinstatement compensation of Rs.one lac directed to be paid to the workman by the appellant- employer within six weeks failing which interest @ workman 9% p.a. will be payable. [Paras 21 and 22] Limitation Act, 1963. Section 5- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Section 25-F- Termination of service- Industrial dispute raised after six years- Limitation Act not applicable to reference made under the I.D. Act-Delay in raising industrial disputes definitely an important circumstances which the Labour Court must keep in view before granting relief".

I have gone through the rival contention of the ld. Authorized Representative as well as ld. Dy. D.A. for State. Keeping in view the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments referred to above it is held that delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely an important circumstance and court has to keep in mind while exercising discretion. In para nos. 20 and 21 of judgment 2013 supra has referred to Gitam Singh's case reported in 2013 (136) FLR 893 (SC) titled as Assistant Engineer Rajasthan Development Corporation and another vs. Geetam Singh observing that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and the delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment (2013 supra) before that workman had worked for 286 days and had raised industrial dispute in 1992 whereas her services have been terminated in 1986 and she raised industrial dispute after six years. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that though compensation awarded by Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court was too low and liable to be enhanced by the Division Bench but surely reinstatement of the workman in the facts and circumstances is not the appropriate relief and thus Hon'ble Apex Court awarded a lump- sum of Rs.1 lakh along-with interest @ 9% per annum if the respondent failed to make payment of compensation within six weeks from the date of judgment. In the case in hand before this court factors which have weighed are that the petitioner in all remained engaged for about 7 years and actually worked for 1541 days as per mandays chart on record and that the services of petitioner were disengaged in February, 2004 who worked as non skilled worker and had raised industrial dispute by issuance of demand notice after about five years i.e. demand notice was given on 26.9.2009. It is also pertinent to mention here that petitioner on the date of filing claim petition was ageing 52 years who has sufficient spell of life to work and earn her livelihood.

21. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble High Court of H.P. titled as The Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Dharampur Division vs. Shri Dhani Ram & Ors. reported in Latest HLJ 2010 (HP) 972. I have gone through this 2766 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 judgment which merely speaks about compensation and not reinstatement. Taking into consideration factors mentioned above in pursuance to judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court petitioner would not be entitled either for reinstatement or for back wages but compensation a lump-sum would be appropriate relief in view of judgment 2013 (139) FLR 25 (SC). The judgments relied upon by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner on the matter of delay and laches is more or less settled law that claim of the petitioner could not be solely declined on the ground of delay and laches. Similarly, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in 2014 titled as Raghubir Singh's case also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner as in this judgment also the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the mandate as given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in previous judgment in the year 2013 i.e. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division Kota and Mohan Lal's case. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment titled as Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh v. Akhilesh Kumar Khare & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 3473. Ld. counsel for petitioner has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble High Court of H.P. reported in Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 903 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & others vs. Bhatag Ram and another in which Hon'ble High Court of H.P. has held that it was not necessary for the workman to complete 240 days during 12 calendar months for taking the benefits of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. As such, even when the petitioner has failed to establish to have worked for 240 days as mentioned in the mandays chart and protection envisaged under Section 25-G and 25-H would be attracted in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Bank of India vs. S. Satyam, 1996 (5) SCC 419 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for the applicability of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act, there was no necessity of claimant/petitioner to have worked for 240 days as in case of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

22. In view of foregoing discussion, a lump-sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) would be appropriate relief to which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above. It is further made clear that amount of compensation shall be paid within four months from the date of Award failing which the petitioner would be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from date of Award till its realization. Issues no. 1, 2 and 3 are answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO. 3

23. On the plea of non-maintainability of the claim petition under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has failed to allege in reply in what manner petition is not maintainable. Thus, vague plea merits rejection outright. Otherwise also, from pleadings and evidence on record, no inference of claim petition being not maintainable could be raised against claimant/petitioner. This issue is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondent.

RELIEF

24. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, the respondent is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the petitioner in lieu of the reinstatement in services as well as the other consequential service benefits. Amount of compensation so awarded shall be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within four months from today failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay the interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of award till the date of its realization. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

25. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

26. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette.

day of May, 2016.

27. File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room. Announced in the open Court today this 6th

(K. K. Sharma)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal,

Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

_____________

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-

CUM-INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA (HP)

Ref. No. : 293/2015

Date of Institution : 13.07.2015

Date of Decision : 06.05.2016

Shri Suresh Kumar s/o Shri Achhar Singh, r/o Village Janjhal, P.O. Ropari, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division, Dharampur, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. . .Respondent.

Reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. N.L. Kaundal, AR : Sh. Vijay Kaundal, Adv.

For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A.

AWARD

The reference given below has been received from the appropriate Government for adjudication:

"Whether the industrial dispute raised by the worker Shri Suresh Kumar S/O Shri Achhar Singh, R/O Village Janjhal, P.O. Ropari, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. before the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division, Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P. vide demand notice dated 24.08.2009 regarding his alleged illegal termination of service w.e.f. 09.02.2004 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Shri Suresh Kumar S/O Shri Achhar Singh, R/O Village Janjhal, P.O. Ropari, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division, Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P. w.e.f. 09.02.2004 without complying the2768 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 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 aggrieved workman is entitled to from the above employer? "

2. On receipt of reference from appropriate government, notices were issued to the parties in pursuance to which claimant/petitioner has filed statement of claim.

3. Brief facts leading to institution of the present claim petition by the petitioner above named reveal that he had been engaged as daily waged beldar on muster roll basis w.e.f. December, 1998 who continuously worked till 8.2.2004 and had completed 240 days of work in each calendar year who was thus duly covered under the definition of continuous service as defined under Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity). Averments made in the petition further revealed that the services of petitioner had been terminated by the respondent in the month of February, 2004 along-with 1697 daily wager workman and before terminating the services of petitioner, petitioner had been paid retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F of the Act. It is stated that at the time of termination of the services of petitioner along-with other workmen, respondent had not followed the principle of 'Last come First go' and persons junior to petitioner namely S/Subhash Chand, Shashi Kant and Bidhi Chand and others were retained in service by the respondent and same had violated the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act. After the termination of petitioner's services and the other workmen numbering 1697, in the months of June and July, 2004, some of the workmen have been re-engaged by the respondent but petitioner was not given any opportunity of re-employment. In the month of December, 2004, petitioner approached the respondent to provide him the work on the basis of his seniority but the respondent expressed the ability to petitioner to provide him job being surplus employee. The respondent/department further told petitioner that the retrenchment process of the other workmen who are surplus was still continuing because of which petitioner could not be re-engaged. Approximately 500 workmen have been reinstated by the respondent who were paid 50% back wages with all consequential service benefits including the seniority as per the order passed by this Court however the retrenchment order dated 08.7.2005 has been quashed by this Court/Tribunal. The persons who have been reinstated in service and paid 50% back wages are S/Sh. Vijay Kumar, Megh Singh and Sanjay Kumar etc. All of them are/were junior to petitioner. The act and conduct of the respondent is highly unjustified, arbitrary and unconstitutional. It is also in contravention of the provisions contained under Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act. The petitioner is unemployed from the date of his illegal termination. As such, as is evident from the prayer clause of the petition/statement of claim, the petitioner has claimed for setting aside illegal termination order passed by the respondent w.e.f. 09.02.2004 and prayed direction to respondent to reinstate the services of petitioner with full back wages, seniority, in continuity of service with all consequential service benefits. The petitioner further prayed that respondent be directed to regularize the services of petitioner on the basis of policy framed by the State Government and on the basis of his seniority fall in the cadre post besides pay the Rs.5000/- as litigation cost as well as counsel fee and if any other relief deemed fit may kindly be granted in the favour of petitioner in the interest of justice.

4. The respondent contested claim petition, filed reply inter-alia taken preliminary objections of maintainability, delay and laches. On merits denied that the services of petitioner were engaged as daily waged beldar on July, 1998 and he worked upto January, 2004 intermittently. It is alleged that petitioner had left the work of his own sweet will who had not completed 240 days of work in each calendar year. It is stated that if the petitioner had abandoned the work of his own convenience in the month of May, 2004 there was no violation of any provisions of the Act. It is stated that during the years 2005, 1087 workers had been retrenched but the services of petitioner were not terminated because he had already2769 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 abandoned the job of his own sweet will in the month of January, 2004. It is further stated that petitioner had raised demand notice in the year 2009 i.e. after about 5 years from his termination and never approached the respondent/department after his retrenchment. It is also contended that since the services of petitioner had not been terminated by the respondent, question of issuance of notice or wages in lieu thereof did not arise and at the same time, there was no necessity for charge-sheet or issuing any notice of petitioner after his termination. It is contended that petitioner was agriculturist and gainfully employed and was thus not entitled for back wages.

5. The petitioner filed rejoinder, reiterated his stand as maintained in the claim petition.

6. In order to prove his case, petitioner had examined himself as PW1 tendered/proved his affidavit Ex. PW1/A under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, Ex. PW1/B copy of notice dated 23.1.2004 regarding retrenchment compensation and closed evidence. On the other hand, repudiating the evidence led by the petitioner, respondent examined RW1 Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta, the then Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Dharampur as RW1 tendered/proved his affidavit Ex. RW1/A and mandays chart Ex. RW1/B and closed the evidence.

7. I have heard the ld. Authorized Representative/counsel of petitioner and ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent, gone through records of the case carefully relevant for disposed of this case.

8. From the contentions raised, following issues were framed on 30.11.2015 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated 24.8.2009 qua his termination of service w.e.f.09-02- 2004 by respondent suffers from the vice of delay and laches as alleged? If so, its effect? . .OPP.

2. Whether termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. 09-02-2004 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged? . .OPP.

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

4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form? . . OPR.

Relief.

9. For the reasons detailed here under, my findings on the above issues are as follows:—

Issue No.1 : Yes

Issue No.2 : Yes

Issue No.3 : Discussed

Issue No.4 : No

Relief. :Petition is partly allowed awarding compensation Rs.1,00,000/- per operative part of award.

ISSUES NO.1, 2 AND 3

10. All these issues have been taken up together for discussion being interconnected which can be disposed of simultaneously without repetition of evidence.

11. Relationship of petitioner having been engaged as daily waged beldar by respondent on muster roll basis in the year 1998 who continuously worked till 2004 at HPPWD Division Dharampur is not in dispute. Admittedly, petitioner was engaged without any written order or settlement of terms and conditions by the respondent. It is equally not in dispute that no written order was passed while terminating service of the petitioner as claim of respondent remains that it had not retrenched petitioner from service who had abandoned the job of his own and used to work intermittently as per his own wish and convenience. Admittedly, the reference of appropriate govt. does not relate to plea of fictional breaks but only with regard to petitioner's termination from service. In the backdrop of foregoing admitted facts on record, claim of petitioner requires to be adjudicated with a view to determine if petitioner is entitled for relief of reinstatement and back wages along-with seniority and past service benefits and compensation as claimed by him.

12. Stepping into witness box as PW1 has sworn in affidavit Ex. PW1/A reiterating and reaffirming his pleadings as stipulated in claim petition. In his affidavit he has claimed to have worked with the respondent/department for more than 240 days in Dharampur Division Mandi District and remained engaged from 1998 to 2004. He has also stated on oath that no notice under Section 25-F of the Act was given by the respondent before terminating his service and at the same time no compensation in lieu thereof notice period was paid to him and thus his termination was illegal and void entitling petitioner benefit of reinstatement of service with full back wages and all the other consequential service benefits. The petitioner has further alleged on oath that respondent/department after terminating his services in February, 2004 by oral order had engaged several co-workers who were junior to petitioner were retained in service. Not only this, the persons who were junior to petitioner are stated to have been regularized in service and thus respondent had not followed the mandate of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act which was obligatory on its part. The case of petitioner also remains that he had served respondent with due diligence and had spotless service record as respondent/department had never called any explanation or raised charge-sheet against him but even while retrenching petitioner from service, no notice was given. He admitted that petitioner had not given any representation to the respondent/department w.e.f. 2004 to 2009. He denied that he had left the work of his own sweet will after December, 2001. He further denied that no juniors had been kept by the respondent. He admitted that demand notice was given by petitioner in the year 2009. He admitted that petitioner worked on privately for his livelihood.

13. In so far as plea of abandonment raised by respondent is concerned, the same merits rejection in view of the fact that respondent had failed to produce any record by which it could be established that whenever petitioner absented from his duty as also reflected in mandays chart Ex. RW1/B any notice or letter was ever issued. On this point respondent as RW1 has specifically admitted that whenever petitioner abandoned the job, no notice had been issued. RW1 specifically admitted that no departmental inquiry was initiated against petitioner even after February, 2004. No reason whatsoever has been assigned for such any action or omission on the part of respondent in not initiating any departmental proceedings or making correspondence calling upon the petitioner to join service. This prima facie belies the stand taken by the respondent as abandonment has to be proved like any other fact in issue. The petitioner, on the other hand, as PW1 in cross-examination has specifically denied that he used to leave the2771 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 job in between and attended the work intermittently rather he has claimed that intermittent breaks had been deliberately given to his by the respondent in the service record of petitioner so that petitioner did not complete 240 days of work as required and also for applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. As such, in absence of any specific and reliable evidence led by respondent, it would be unsafe to hold that respondent had established plea of abandonment.

14. A bare glance on the mandays chart Ex. RW1/B would reveal that petitioner had worked for 28 days in the year 1998, 333 days in 1999, 335 days in 2000, 331 days in 2001, 322 days in 2002, 294 ½ days in 2003 and 17 days in 2004 and thus a total of his service in 1998 to 2004 petitioner had worked for 1661.5 days in his entire service period. Be it noticed that from the mandays chart referred to above if the petitioner has actually worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months from date of his termination as the mandays chart nowhere shown the month till when petitioner worked and therefore no inference of his work in preceding 12 months can be raised. The burden of proof was on the petitioner who has not been duly proved and adverse inference withdrawn and on the said reason petitioner is held to have violation of Section 25-F on the part of the respondent. The petitioner had not worked for more than 240 days and as there is no reference from the Labour Commissioner, Shimla on the point of artificial breaks, this court is to confine its findings only with regard to alleged illegal termination. It is evident from mandays chart Ex. RW1/B that in the year 2004 the petitioner had merely worked for 17 days and thus immediately in preceding 12 calendar months from the month of termination of petitioner had not rendered service of 240 days so as to meet requirement of law of having continuous service of one year and thus it was not at all required from respondent to have issued a notice envisaged under Section 25-F of the Act. As such, the respondent is held to have not violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent had given notice to the petitioner under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act which shows that respondent had given compensation to the petitioner prior his retrenchment from service.

15. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has contended with vehemence that large number of workers who were junior to petitioner had been appointed and these workers have been retained in service and regularized. The grievance of petitioner remains that principle of 'Last come First go' was not followed as the juniors were retained and services of petitioner despite being senior was terminated without any valid reason. In para no.3 of the affidavit, petitioner has mentioned junior person namely Subhash Chand, Shasi Kant, Bidhi Chand, Inder Singh, Ajay Kumar, and Smt. Roshani Devi who have been engaged after him who are still continuing in job and regularized as per version of respondent as RW1 who has specifically admitted that although above workers were junior to petitioner and still working with the department whereas petitioner has been terminated. Evidently, there is no iota of evidence of respondent establishing that petitioner was called upon to join for service at any time after February, 2002 even at the time when junior persons were reengaged. That being so the respondent had certainly violated the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act as the juniors workers mentioned in the affidavit were retained whereas petitioner was senior from these co-workers having joined service in 1998 was terminated and even thereafter respondent omitted to afford opportunity to petitioner for reemployment for work which also violates the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of Central Bank of India vs. S. Satyam, 1996 (5) SCC 419 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for the applicability of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act, there was no necessity of claimant/petitioner to have worked for 240 days as in case of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

16. Repudiating claim of petitioner, the respondent, on the other hand, has made futile attempt to justify engagement of junior workers and their retention in service on the basis of 2772 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 orders of Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Court of H.P. These judgments/orders have been gone through which revealed that respondent had wrongly terminated the services of those claimant/petitioner and for said reasons they were directed to be reinstated. As such, even when petitioner is proved to have not worked for more than 240 days in preceding 01 year which entitled him for regularization of his service per government policy, yet respondent is not absolved from its accountability of provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act and as such it is held that respondent had violated the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act.

17. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has contended that after petitioner's termination in February, 2004 he had remained unemployed and was not earning anything thereafter as such was entitled for full back wages. Repudiating the arguments of ld. Authorized Representative of petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. for the State has taken this court through cross-examination of the petitioner who has admitted that he had cultivatable land with him and also worked a private labourer. Thus, plea of having remained not gainfully employed gets belied admission of petitioner in cross-examination in which he had maintained that he had been earning from agricultural land as well as he has been working as daily wager privately. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. M. Nagangouda (2007) 10 SCC 765 in which Division Bench comprising of Justice A.R. Lakshmanan and Justice Altamas Kabir had held that 'term gainfully employment would also include self employment wherefrom income is generated. It was income either from employment in an establishment or from self employment merely differentiates the sources from which income is generated, the end use being the same'. Applying the ratio of judgment of 2007 (supra) to this case since the petitioner was earning from his agricultural and manual pursuits, the same were sufficient to maintain his and his family. It is thus held that petitioner was gainfully employed. Be it stated here that Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase's case has held that the Labour Court was not justified in holding that merely because the respondent was receiving agriculture income, he cannot be treated to be engaged in gainful employment. Since the petitioner had income from agriculture pursuits for his livelihood it cannot be stated that petitioner was not gainfully employed and thus would not be entitled full back wages. In view of the forgoing discussion, it is held that the relationship of workman and employer existed between petitioner and respondent and that petitioner was illegally retrenched without compliance of Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Act although remained gainfully employed after his retrenchment. Thus, applying the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court (2007 supra), it may not be erroneous to hold that petitioner was gainfully employed and thus would be not entitled for back wages for the period he was out of job on being terminated by the respondent.

18. Lastly, Ld. Dy. D.A. for State has contended with vehemence that there is inordinate and explained delay which disentitles petitioner relief claimed for by him. On the other hand, ld. Authorized Representative for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014 Lab IC 4266 (SC) and the relevant paras of the judgment are produced below for reference:

"12. Therefore, in our considered view, the observations made by this Court in the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board case (supra) upon which the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana has placed reliance cannot be applied to the fact situation of the case on hand, for the reason that the Labour Court has erroneously rejected the reference without judiciously considering all the relevant factors of the case particularly the points of dispute referred to it and answered the 2nd issue regarding the reference being barred by limitation but not on the merits of the2773 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 case. The said decision has no application to the fact situation and also for the reason the catena of decisions of this Court referred to supra, wherein this Court has categorically held that the provisions of Limitation Act under Article 137 has no application to make reference by the appropriate government to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of existing industrial dispute between workmen and the employer.

13. In the case on hand, no doubt there is a delay in raising the dispute by the appellant; the Labour Court nevertheless has the power to mould the relief accordingly. At the time of adjudication, if the dispute referred to the Labour Court is not adjudicated by it, it does not mean that the dispute ceases to exist. The appropriate government in exercise of its statutory power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act can refer the industrial dispute, between the parties, at any time, to either the jurisdictional Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal as interpreted by this Court in the Avon Services case referred to supra. Therefore, the State Government has rightly exercised its power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act and referred the points of dispute to the Labour Court as the same are in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Avon Services & Sapan Kumar Pandit cases referred to supra.

14. Further, the workman cannot be denied to seek relief only on the ground of

delay in raising the dispute as held in the case of S.M. Nilajkar & Ors. v. Telecom

District Manager, Karnataka[4] it was held by this Court as follows-

"17. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that on account of delay in raising the dispute by the appellants the High Court was justified in denying relief to the appellants. We cannot agree...... In Ratan Chandra Sammanta and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra)1993 AIR SCW 2214, it was held that a casual labourer retrenched by the employer deprives himself of remedy available in law by delay itself, lapse of time results in losing the remedy and the right as well. The delay would certainly be fatal if it has resulted in material evidence relevant to adjudication being lost and rendered not available. However, we do not think that the delay in the case at hand has been so culpable as to disentitle the appellants for any relief....." (Emphasis laid by the Court) In view of the legal principles laid down by this Court in the above judgment, the reference of the industrial dispute made in the case on hand by the State Government to the Labour Court to adjudicate the existing industrial dispute between the parties was made within a reasonable time, considering the circumstances in which the workman was placed, firstly, as there was a criminal case pending against his and secondly, the respondent had assured the workman that he would be reinstated after his acquittal from the criminal case. Moreover, it is reasonable to adjudicate the industrial dispute in spite of the delay in raising and referring the matter, since there is no mention of any loss or unavailability of material evidence due to the delay. Thus, we do not consider the delay in raising the industrial dispute and referring the same to the Labour Court for adjudication as gravely erroneous and it does not debar the workman from claiming rightful relief from his employer.

15. In the case of Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum- Processing Service Society Limited & Anr.[5] this Court has opined that relief cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay, stating that:-

"10. It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real2774 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labour court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay in shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/ termination or dismissal. The Court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full back wages....." (Emphasis laid by the Court)

16. Hence, we are of the opinion, having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case that there is no delay or latches on the part of the workman from the date of his acquittal in the criminal case. Thereafter, upon failure of the respondent in adhering to the assurance given to the workman that he would be reinstated after his acquittal from the criminal case, the workman approached the conciliation officer and the State Government to make a reference to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute with regard to the order of dismissal passed by the respondent. Keeping in mind the date of acquittal of the appellant and the date on which he approached the conciliation officer by raising the dispute, since the respondent had not adhered to its assurance, the State Government had rightly referred the dispute for its adjudication. Therefore it cannot be said that there was a delay on the part of the appellant in raising the dispute and getting it referred to the Labour Court by the State Government.

17. Further, the Labour Court on an erroneous assumption of law framed the additional issue regarding the limitation in raising the dispute and its reference by the State Government to the Labour Court. Thus, the Labour Court has ignored the legal principles laid down by this Court in the cases referred to supra. The award passed by the Labour Court was accepted erroneously by both the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court by dismissing the Civil Writ Petition & the Letters Patent Appeal without examining the case in its proper perspective, keeping in view the power of the State Government under Section 10(1)(c) and the object and intendment of the Act. Not adjudicating the existing industrial dispute on merits between the parties referred to it may lead to disruption of industrial peace and harmony, which is the foremost important aspect in Industrial Jurisprudence as the same would affect the public interest at large.

19. Ld. counsel representing respondent department has also contended with vehemence that claim petition is barred by limitation on account of delay and laches. It has been pointed that termination of petitioner in this case took place on 2004 and the industrial dispute was raised after several years of retrenchment. Repudiating the argument by ld. counsel, ld. AR for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment reported in 2007 LHLJ 903 Hon'ble High Court of H.P. (Bhatag Ram's case) in which it has been held that delay in raising dispute may be considered by court at the time of granting final relief however in various other judgments even longer delay has been condoned. In Divisional Manager, HPFC & another vs. Garibu Ram, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 1160, delay of more than 10 years was condoned besides Hon'ble High Court has held that principle of Limitation Act is not applicable to the industrial dispute. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajayab Singh vs. Sirhind Co- operative Marketing- cum-Processing Society Limited and Another, (1999) 6 SCC 82 in which it has been held that the principle of Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply to the proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act.

20. Relying upon the aforestated judgment, it has been contended that claim of petitioner cannot be defeated on the point of delay and laches. Repudiating arguments advanced by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. has placed reliance upon2775 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub- Division Kota and Mohan Lal [2013 (139) FLR 125], the relevant para of the judgment are produced below for reference:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 25-F and 10- Limitation Act, 1963- Section 5- Industrial dispute- Termination of service-Finding of Lboaur Court that workman had completed 240 days in calander year and his termination was in violation o section 25-F of the I.D.Act- Wrokman worked from 1.11.1984 to 17.2.1986 in all 286 days during employment. His services terminated on 18.2.1986. Industrial dispute raised after 6 years of termination. Admitted delay of 6 years not kept in view by the Labour Court- Judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court flawed and unsustainable. Reinstatement of the workman not the appropriate relief. In lieu of reinstatement compensation of Rs.one lac directed to be paid to the workman by the appellant-employer within six weeks failing which interest @ workman 9% p.a. will be payable. [Paras 21 and 22] Limitation Act, 1963. Section 5- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Section 25-F- Termination of service- Industrial dispute raised after six years- Limitation Act not applicable to reference made under the I.D. Act-Delay in raising industrial disputes definitely an important circumstances which the Labour Court must keep in view before granting relief".

I have gone through the rival contention of the ld. Authorized Representative as well as ld. Dy. D.A. for State. Keeping in view the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments referred to above it is held that delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely an important circumstance and court has to keep in mind while exercising discretion. In para nos. 20 and 21 of judgment 2013 supra has referred to Gitam Singh's case reported in 2013 (136) FLR 893 (SC) titled as Assistant Engineer Rajasthan Development Corporation and another vs. Geetam Singh observing that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and the delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment (2013 supra) before that workman had worked for 286 days and had raised industrial dispute in 1992 whereas his services have been terminated in 1986 and he raised industrial dispute after six years. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that though compensation awarded by Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court was too low and liable to be enhanced by the Division Bench but surely reinstatement of the workman in the facts and circumstances is not the appropriate relief and thus Hon'ble Apex Court awarded a lump- sum of Rs.1 lakh along-with interest @ 9% per annum if the respondent failed to make payment of compensation within six weeks from the date of judgment. In the case in hand before this court factors which have weighed are that the petitioner in all remained engaged for about 7 years and actually worked for 1661 days as per mandays chart on record and that the services of petitioner were disengaged in February, 2004 who worked as non skilled worker and had raised industrial dispute by issuance of demand notice after about five years i.e. demand notice was given on 24.8.2009. It is also pertinent to mention here that petitioner on the date of filing claim petition was ageing 36 years who has sufficient spell of life to work and earn his livelihood.

21. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble High Court of H.P. titled as The Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Dharampur Division vs. Shri Dhani Ram & Ors. reported in Latest HLJ 2010 (HP) 972. I have gone through this judgment which merely speaks about compensation and not reinstatement. Taking into consideration factors mentioned above in pursuance to judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court petitioner would not be entitled either for reinstatement or for back wages but compensation a 2776 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 lump-sum would be appropriate relief in view of judgment 2013 (139) FLR 25 (SC). The judgments relied upon by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner on the matter of delay and laches is more or less settled law that claim of the petitioner could not be solely declined on the ground of delay and laches. Similarly, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in 2014 titled as Raghubir Singh's case also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner as in this judgment also the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the mandate as given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in previous judgment in the year 2013 i.e. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division Kota and Mohan Lal's case. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment titled as Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh v. Akhilesh Kumar Khare & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 3473. Ld. counsel for petitioner has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble High Court of H.P. reported in Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 903 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & others vs. Bhatag Ram and another in which Hon'ble High Court of H.P. has held that it was not necessary for the workman to complete 240 days during 12 calendar months for taking the benefits of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. As such, even when the petitioner has failed to establish to have worked for 240 days as mentioned in the mandays chart and protection envisaged under Section 25-G and 25-H would be attracted in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Bank of India vs. S. Satyam, 1996 (5) SCC 419 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for the applicability of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act, there was no necessity of claimant/petitioner to have worked for 240 days as in case of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

22. In view of foregoing discussion, a lump-sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) would be appropriate relief to which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above. It is further made clear that amount of compensation shall be paid within four months from the date of Award failing which the petitioner would be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from date of Award till its realization. Issues no. 1, 2 and 3 are answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.3

23. On the plea of non-maintainability of the claim petition under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has failed to allege in reply in what manner petition is not maintainable. Thus, vague plea merits rejection outright. Otherwise also, from pleadings and evidence on record, no inference of claim petition being not maintainable could be raised against claimant/petitioner. This issue is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondent.

RELIEF

24. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, the respondent is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the petitioner in lieu of the reinstatement in services as well as the other consequential service benefits. Amount of compensation so awarded shall be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within four months from today failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay the interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of award till the date of its realization. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

25. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

26. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette.

day of May, 2016.

27. File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room. Announced in the open Court today this 6th

(K.K. Sharma)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal,

Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

____________

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA (HP)

Ref. No. : 396/2015

Date of Institution : 11.09.2015

Date of Decision : 06.05.2016

Shri Prabh Dayal s/o Shrei Fateh (alias Fateh Singh), r/o Village Sidhan, P.O. Pehad, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division, Dharampur, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. . .Respondent.

Reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. N.L. Kaundal, AR : Sh. Vijay Kaundal, Adv.

For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A.

AWARD

The reference given below has been received from the appropriate Government for adjudication:

"Whether the industrial dispute raised by the worker Shri Prabh Dayal S/O Sheri Fateh (alias Fateh Singh), R/O Village Sidhan, P.O. Pehad, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. before the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division, Dharampur, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. vide demand notice dated 18.06.2010 regarding his alleged illegal termination of services w.e.f. 08.07.2005 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Shri Prabh Dayal S/O Sheri Fateh (alias Fateh Singh), R/O Village Sidhan, P.O. Pehad, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division, Dharampur, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. w.e.f. 08.07.2005 without complying 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 aggrieved workman is entitled to from the above employer?" 2778 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 2. On receipt of reference from appropriate government, notices were issued to the parties in pursuance to which claimant/petitioner has filed statement of claim.

3. Brief facts as set up in the claim petition revealed that petitioner had been engaged by the respondent on muster roll on daily wage basis w.e.f. 7.12.1998 who continued to work till 7.7.2005 uninterruptedly and had completed 240 days in each calendar year and was thus also covered under the definition of "continuous service as envisaged under Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity). The grievances of petitioner remains that his services have bbeen terminated by the respondent by order dated 4.7.2005 w.e.f. 8.7.2005 by giving three months advance notice along- with pay and thus petitioner has paid retrenchment compensation under Section 25- N of the Act. Averments made in the claim petition further revealed that while retrenching the services of petitioner, respondent/department had not followed the principle of 'Last come First go' by retaining juniors i.e. S/Sh. Prabhu Ram, Shashi Pal, Roshani Devi, Mamta Devi, Inder Singh and Ajay Kumar and had thus violated Section 25-G of the Act. Not only this, fresh hands also been engaged by the respondent/department namely Pardeep Kumar, Lekh Raj and Satya Devi in the years 2007, 2004 and 2011 respectively and thus at that time petitioner was not offered opportunity of reemployment. It is alleged that retrenchment order dated 8.7.2005 of 43 workmen by respondent/department had been set aside by this court on 30.3.2009 directing respondent to pay back wages of 50% along-with reinstatement. The order dated 30.3.2009 had assailed by the respondent qua 50% back wages as granted by this court. It is stated that on the basis of award of this court as well as Hon'ble High Court services of some workmen namely Vijay Kumar, Megh Singh, Sanjay Kumar, Raj Kumar, Roop Lal, Saroj Kumar and Malkeet Khan were offered employment who were still continued with the respondent/department in different capacities. During the pendency of CWP no.3162/2015, the Hon'ble High Court had directed to Labour Commissioner to refer the dispute to Labour Court for adjudication within a period of four weeks.

4. The respondent contested claim petition, filed reply inter-alia taken preliminary objections of maintainability, delay and laches. On merits denied that the services of petitioner were engaged as daily waged beldar on January, 1999 and he worked upto July, 2005 and was retrenched w.e.f. 8.7.2005 after adopting the all codal formalities besides respondent had given three months notice and also paid retrenchment compensation to the petitioner and same had accepted by the petitioner without any protest. It is denied that retrenchment of petitioner was illegal. It is stated that petitioner was engaged as daily waged beldar and his service had been terminated by the respondent on 7.7.2005. It is further stated that some workers were transferred to Dharampur Division from other Division but their senioriyt list was not received due to which they were retained in service however, after receipt of seniority list, retrenchment notice too served to the other juniors and respondent had not violated principle of 'Last come First go'. It is alleged that the workers mentioned in para no.5 of claim petition were engaged on compassionate grounds after approval from the Govt. as their parents were expired during the working hours in the respondent/department. It is admitted that 43 workmen were reengaged as per order of this court but the petitioner had not filed any case before this Tribunal. It is submitted that Hon'ble High Court of H.P. had passed order in CWP No.1387/2010 titled as NIhal Chand vs. State of H.P. in which the Hon'ble High Court say that all these cases are disposed of making it clear that toward the full and final settlement of the claim of back wages each of workman would be paid and amount of Rs.50,000/- in addition to notice they had already received. It is contended that petitioner was agriculturist and gainfully employed and was thus not entitled for back wages.

5. The petitioner filed rejoinder, reiterated his stand as maintained in the claim petition.

6. In order to prove his case, petitioner had examined himself as PW1 tendered/proved his affidavit Ex. PW1/A under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, and closed evidence. On the other hand, repudiating the evidence led by the petitioner, respondent examined RW1 Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta, the then Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Dharampur as RW1 tendered/proved his affidavit Ex. RW1/A and mandays chart Ex. RW1/B and closed the evidence.

7. I have heard the ld. Authorized Representative/counsel of petitioner and ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent, gone through records of the case carefully relevant for disposed of this case.

8. From the contentions raised, following issues were framed on 09.12.2015 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated 18- 06-2010 qua his termination of service w.e.f. 8.7.2005 by respondent suffers from the vice of delay and laches as alleged? If so, its effect? . .OPP.

2. Whether termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. 08-07-2005 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged? . .OPP.

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

4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form? . . OPR.

Relief.

9. For the reasons detailed here under, my findings on the above issues are as follows:—

Issue No.1 : Yes

Issue No.2 : Yes

Issue No.3 : Discussed

Issue No.4 : No

Relief. :Petition is partly allowed awarding compensation Rs.1,25,000/- per operative part of award.

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

ISSUES NO.1, 2 AND 3

10. All these issues have been taken up together for discussion being interconnected which can be disposed of simultaneously without repetition of evidence.

11. Relationship of petitioner having been engaged as daily waged beldar by respondent on muster roll basis in the year 1999 who continuously worked till 2005 at HPPWD Division Dharampur is not in dispute. Admittedly, petitioner was engaged without any written order or settlement of terms and conditions by the respondent. It is equally not in dispute that no 2780 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 written order was passed while terminating service of the petitioner as claim of respondent remains that it had not retrenched petitioner from service who had abandoned the job of his own and used to work intermittently as per his own wish and convenience. Admittedly, the reference of appropriate govt. does not relate to plea of fictional breaks but only with regard to petitioner's termination from service. In the backdrop of foregoing admitted facts on record, claim of petitioner requires to be adjudicated with a view to determine if petitioner is entitled for relief of reinstatement and back wages along-with seniority and past service benefits and compensation as claimed by him.

12. Stepping into witness box as PW1 has sworn in affidavit Ex. PW1/A reiterating and reaffirming his pleadings as stipulated in claim petition. In his affidavit he has claimed to have worked with the respondent/department for more than 240 days in Dharampur Division Mandi District and remained engaged from 1999 to 2004. He has also stated on oath that no notice under Section 25-F of the Act was given by the respondent before terminating his service and at the same time no compensation in lieu thereof notice period was paid to him and thus his termination was illegal and void entitling petitioner benefit of reinstatement of service with full back wages and all the other consequential service benefits. The petitioner has further alleged on oath that respondent/department after terminating his services in February, 2004 by oral order had engaged several co-workers who were junior to petitioner were retained in service. Not only this, the persons who were junior to petitioner are stated to have been regularized in service and thus respondent had not followed the mandate of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act which was obligatory on its part. The case of petitioner also remains that he had served respondent with due diligence and had spotless service record as respondent/department had never called any explanation or raised charge-sheet against him but even while retrenching petitioner from service, no notice was given. He admitted that petitioner had not given any representation to the respondent/department w.e.f. 2005 to 2010. He denied that he had left the work of his own sweet will after July, 2005. He further denied that no juniors had been kept by the respondent. He admitted that demand notice was given by petitioner in the year 2010. He admitted that petitioner worked on privately for his livelihood.

13. In so far as plea of abandonment raised by respondent is concerned, the same merits rejection in view of the fact that respondent had failed to produce any record by which it could be established that whenever petitioner absented from his duty as also reflected in mandays chart Ex. RW1/B any notice or letter was ever issued. On this point respondent as RW1 has specifically admitted that whenever petitioner abandoned the job, no notice had been issued. RW1 specifically admitted that no departmental inquiry was initiated against petitioner even after February, 2004. No reason whatsoever has been assigned for such any action or omission on the part of respondent in not initiating any departmental proceedings or making correspondence calling upon the petitioner to join service. This prima facie belies the stand taken by the respondent as abandonment has to be proved like any other fact in issue. The petitioner, on the other hand, as PW1 in cross-examination has specifically denied that he used to leave the job in between and attended the work intermittently rather he has claimed that intermittent breaks had been deliberately given to his by the respondent in the service record of petitioner so that petitioner did not complete 240 days of work as required and also for applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. As such, in absence of any specific and reliable evidence led by respondent, it would be unsafe to hold that respondent had established plea of abandonment.

14. A bare glance on the mandays chart Ex. RW1/B would reveal that petitioner had worked for 325.5 days in the year 1999, 343 days in 2000, 323 days in 2001, 345 days in 2002, 355 days in 2003, 301 days in 2004 and 125 days in 2005 and thus a total of his service in 1999 to 2005 petitioner had worked for 2113.5 days in his entire service period. Be it noticed that from the mandays chart referred to above if the petitioner has actually worked for 240 days in2781 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 preceding 12 months from date of his termination as the mandays chart nowhere shown the month till when petitioner worked and therefore no inference of his work in preceding 12 months can be raised. The burden of proof was on the petitioner who has not been duly proved and adverse inference withdrawn and on the said reason petitioner is held to have violation of Section 25-F on the part of the respondent. The petitioner had not worked for more than 240 days and as there is no reference from the Labour Commissioner, Shimla on the point of artificial breaks, this court is to confine its findings only with regard to alleged illegal termination. It is evident from mandays chart Ex. RW1/B that in the year 2005 the petitioner had merely worked for 125 days and thus immediately in preceding 12 calendar months from the month of termination of petitioner had not rendered service of 240 days so as to meet requirement of law of having continuous service of one year and thus it was not at all required from respondent to have issued a notice envisaged under Section 25-F of the Act. As such, the respondent is held to have not violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

15. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has contended with vehemence that large number of workers who were junior to petitioner had been appointed and these workers have been retained in service and regularized. The grievance of petitioner remains that principle of 'Last come First go' was not followed as the juniors were retained and services of petitioner despite being senior was terminated without any valid reason. In para no.4 of the affidavit, petitioner has mentioned junior person namely Roshani Devi, Mamta Devi, Inder Singh, Ajay Kumar who have been engaged after him who are still continuing in job and regularized as per version of respondent as RW1 who has specifically admitted that although above workers were junior to petitioner and still working with the department whereas petitioner has been terminated. Evidently, there is no iota of evidence of respondent establishing that petitioner was called upon to join for service at any time after July, 2005 even at the time when junior persons were reengaged. That being so the respondent had certainly violated the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act as the juniors workers mentioned in the affidavit were retained whereas petitioner was senior from these co-workers having joined service in 1999 was terminated and even thereafter respondent omitted to afford opportunity to petitioner for reemployment for work which also violates the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of Central Bank of India vs. S. Satyam, 1996 (5) SCC 419 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for the applicability of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act, there was no necessity of claimant/petitioner to have worked for 240 days as in case of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

16. Repudiating claim of petitioner, the respondent, on the other hand, has made futile attempt to justify engagement of junior workers and their retention in service on the basis of orders of Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Court of H.P. These judgments/orders have been gone through which revealed that respondent had wrongly terminated the services of those claimant/petitioner and for said reasons they were directed to be reinstated. As such, even when petitioner is proved to have not worked for more than 240 days in preceding 01 year which entitled him for regularization of his service per government policy, yet respondent is not absolved from its accountability of provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act and as such it is held that respondent had violated the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25- H of the Industrial Disputes Act.

17. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has contended that after petitioner's termination in July, 2005 he had remained unemployed and was not earning anything thereafter as such was entitled for full back wages. Repudiating the arguments of ld. Authorized Representative of petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. for the State has taken this court through cross- examination of the petitioner who has admitted that he had cultivatable land with him and also worked a private labourer. Thus, plea of having remained not gainfully employed gets belied 2782 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 admission of petitioner in cross-examination in which he had maintained that he had been earning from agricultural land as well as he has been working as daily wager privately. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. M. Nagangouda (2007) 10 SCC 765 in which Division Bench comprising of Justice A.R. Lakshmanan and Justice Altamas Kabir had held that 'term gainfully employment would also include self employment wherefrom income is generated. It was income either from employment in an establishment or from self employment merely differentiates the sources from which income is generated, the end use being the same'. Applying the ratio of judgment of 2007 (supra) to this case since the petitioner was earning from his agricultural and manual pursuits, the same were sufficient to maintain his and his family. It is thus held that petitioner was gainfully employed. Be it stated here that Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase's case has held that the Labour Court was not justified in holding that merely because the respondent was receiving agriculture income, he cannot be treated to be engaged in gainful employment. Since the petitioner had income from agriculture pursuits for his livelihood it cannot be stated that petitioner was not gainfully employed and thus would not be entitled full back wages. In view of the forgoing discussion, it is held that the relationship of workman and employer existed between petitioner and respondent and that petitioner was illegally retrenched without compliance of Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Act although remained gainfully employed after his retrenchment. Thus, applying the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court (2007 supra), it may not be erroneous to hold that petitioner was gainfully employed and thus would be not entitled for back wages for the period he was out of job on being terminated by the respondent.

18. Lastly, Ld. Dy. D.A. for State has contended with vehemence that there is inordinate and explained delay which disentitles petitioner relief claimed for by him. On the other hand, ld. Authorized Representative for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014 Lab IC 4266 (SC) and the relevant paras of the judgment are produced below for reference:

"12. Therefore, in our considered view, the observations made by this Court in the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board case (supra) upon which the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana has placed reliance cannot be applied to the fact situation of the case on hand, for the reason that the Labour Court has erroneously rejected the reference without judiciously considering all the relevant factors of the case particularly the points of dispute referred to it and answered the 2nd issue regarding the reference being barred by limitation but not on the merits of the case. The said decision has no application to the fact situation and also for the reason the catena of decisions of this Court referred to supra, wherein this Court has categorically held that the provisions of Limitation Act under Article 137 has no application to make reference by the appropriate government to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of existing industrial dispute between workmen and the employer.

13. In the case on hand, no doubt there is a delay in raising the dispute by the appellant; the Labour Court nevertheless has the power to mould the relief accordingly. At the time of adjudication, if the dispute referred to the Labour Court is not adjudicated by it, it does not mean that the dispute ceases to exist. The appropriate government in exercise of its statutory power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act can refer the industrial dispute, between the parties, at any time, to either the jurisdictional Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal as interpreted by this Court in the Avon Services case referred to supra. Therefore, the State Government has rightly exercised its power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act and referred the points of dispute to the2783 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 Labour Court as the same are in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Avon Services & Sapan Kumar Pandit cases referred to supra.

14. Further, the workman cannot be denied to seek relief only on the ground of

delay in raising the dispute as held in the case of S.M. Nilajkar & Ors. v. Telecom

District Manager, Karnataka[4] it was held by this Court as follows-

"17. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that on account of delay in raising the dispute by the appellants the High Court was justified in denying relief to the appellants. We cannot agree...... In Ratan Chandra Sammanta and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra)1993 AIR SCW 2214, it was held that a casual labourer retrenched by the employer deprives himself of remedy available in law by delay itself, lapse of time results in losing the remedy and the right as well. The delay would certainly be fatal if it has resulted in material evidence relevant to adjudication being lost and rendered not available. However, we do not think that the delay in the case at hand has been so culpable as to disentitle the appellants for any relief....." (Emphasis laid by the Court) In view of the legal principles laid down by this Court in the above judgment, the reference of the industrial dispute made in the case on hand by the State Government to the Labour Court to adjudicate the existing industrial dispute between the parties was made within a reasonable time, considering the circumstances in which the workman was placed, firstly, as there was a criminal case pending against his and secondly, the respondent had assured the workman that he would be reinstated after his acquittal from the criminal case. Moreover, it is reasonable to adjudicate the industrial dispute in spite of the delay in raising and referring the matter, since there is no mention of any loss or unavailability of material evidence due to the delay. Thus, we do not consider the delay in raising the industrial dispute and referring the same to the Labour Court for adjudication as gravely erroneous and it does not debar the workman from claiming rightful relief from his employer.

15. In the case of Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum- Processing Service Society Limited & Anr.[5] this Court has opined that relief cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay, stating that:-

"10. It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labour court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay in shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/ termination or dismissal. The Court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full back wages....." (Emphasis laid by the Court)

16. Hence, we are of the opinion, having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case that there is no delay or latches on the part of the workman from the date of his acquittal in the criminal case. Thereafter, upon failure of the respondent in adhering to the assurance given to the workman that he would be reinstated after his acquittal from the criminal case, the workman approached the conciliation officer and the State Government to make a reference to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute with regard to the order of dismissal passed by the respondent. Keeping in mind the date of acquittal of the appellant and the date on which he 2784 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 approached the conciliation officer by raising the dispute, since the respondent had not adhered to its assurance, the State Government had rightly referred the dispute for its adjudication. Therefore it cannot be said that there was a delay on the part of the appellant in raising the dispute and getting it referred to the Labour Court by the State Government.

17. Further, the Labour Court on an erroneous assumption of law framed the additional issue regarding the limitation in raising the dispute and its reference by the State Government to the Labour Court. Thus, the Labour Court has ignored the legal principles laid down by this Court in the cases referred to supra. The award passed by the Labour Court was accepted erroneously by both the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court by dismissing the Civil Writ Petition & the Letters Patent Appeal without examining the case in its proper perspective, keeping in view the power of the State Government under Section 10(1)(c) and the object and intendment of the Act. Not adjudicating the existing industrial dispute on merits between the parties referred to it may lead to disruption of industrial peace and harmony, which is the foremost important aspect in Industrial Jurisprudence as the same would affect the public interest at large.

19. Ld. counsel representing respondent department has also contended with vehemence that claim petition is barred by limitation on account of delay and laches. It has been pointed that termination of petitioner in this case took place on 2005 and the industrial dispute was raised after several years of retrenchment. Repudiating the argument by ld. counsel, ld. AR for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment reported in 2007 LHLJ 903 Hon'ble High Court of H.P. (Bhatag Ram's case) in which it has been held that delay in raising dispute may be considered by court at the time of granting final relief however in various other judgments even longer delay has been condoned. In Divisional Manager, HPFC & another vs. Garibu Ram, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 1160, delay of more than 10 years was condoned besides Hon'ble High Court has held that principle of Limitation Act is not applicable to the industrial dispute. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajayab Singh vs. Sirhind Co- operative Marketing- cum-Processing Society Limited and Another, (1999) 6 SCC 82 in which it has been held that the principle of Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply to the proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act.

20. Relying upon the aforestated judgment, it has been contended that claim of petitioner cannot be defeated on the point of delay and laches. Repudiating arguments advanced by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub- Division Kota and Mohan Lal [2013 (139) FLR 125], the relevant para of the judgment are produced below for reference:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 25-F and 10- Limitation Act, 1963- Section 5- Industrial dispute- Termination of service-Finding of Lboaur Court that workman had completed 240 days in calander year and his termination was in violation o section 25-F of the I.D.Act- Wrokman worked from 1.11.1984 to 17.2.1986 in all 286 days during employment. His services terminated on 18.2.1986. Industrial dispute raised after 6 years of termination. Admitted delay of 6 years not kept in view by the Labour Court- Judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court flawed and unsustainable. Reinstatement of the workman not the appropriate relief. In lieu of reinstatement compensation of Rs.one lac directed to be paid to the workman by the appellant- employer within six weeks failing which interest @ workman 9% p.a. will be payable. [Paras 21 and 22] Limitation Act, 1963. Section 5-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Section 25-F- Termination of service- Industrial dispute raised after six years- Limitation Act not applicable to2785 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 reference made under the I.D. Act-Delay in raising industrial disputes definitely an important circumstances which the Labour Court must keep in view before granting relief".

I have gone through the rival contention of the ld. Authorized Representative as well as ld. Dy. D.A. for State. Keeping in view the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments referred to above it is held that delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely an important circumstance and court has to keep in mind while exercising discretion. In para nos. 20 and 21 of judgment 2013 supra has referred to Gitam Singh's case reported in 2013 (136) FLR 893 (SC) titled as Assistant Engineer Rajasthan Development Corporation and another vs. Geetam Singh observing that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and the delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment (2013 supra) before that workman had worked for 286 days and had raised industrial dispute in 1992 whereas his services have been terminated in 1986 and he raised industrial dispute after six years. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that though compensation awarded by Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court was too low and liable to be enhanced by the Division Bench but surely reinstatement of the workman in the facts and circumstances is not the appropriate relief and thus Hon'ble Apex Court awarded a lump-sum of Rs.1 lakh along-with interest @ 9% per annum if the respondent failed to make payment of compensation within six weeks from the date of judgment. In the case in hand before this court factors which have weighed are that the petitioner in all remained engaged for about 7 years and actually worked for 2113.5 days as per mandays chart on record and that the services of petitioner were disengaged in July, 2005 who worked as non skilled worker and had raised industrial dispute by issuance of demand notice after about five years i.e. demand notice was given on 18.6.2010. It is also pertinent to mention here that petitioner on the date of filing claim petition was ageing 36 years who has sufficient spell of life to work and earn his livelihood.

21. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble High Court of H.P. titled as The Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Dharampur Division vs. Shri Dhani Ram & Ors. reported in Latest HLJ 2010 (HP) 972. I have gone through this judgment which merely speaks about compensation and not reinstatement. Taking into consideration factors mentioned above in pursuance to judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court petitioner would not be entitled either for reinstatement or for back wages but compensation a lump-sum would be appropriate relief in view of judgment 2013 (139) FLR 25 (SC). The judgments relied upon by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner on the matter of delay and laches is more or less settled law that claim of the petitioner could not be solely declined on the ground of delay and laches. Similarly, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in 2014 titled as Raghubir Singh's case also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner as in this judgment also the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the mandate as given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in previous judgment in the year 2013 i.e. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division Kota and Mohan Lal's case. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment titled as Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh v. Akhilesh Kumar Khare & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 3473. Ld. counsel for petitioner has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble High Court of H.P. reported in Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 903 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & others vs. Bhatag Ram and another in which Hon'ble High Court of H.P. has held that it was not necessary for the workman to complete 240 days during 12 calendar months for taking the 2786 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 benefits of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. As such, even when the petitioner has failed to establish to have worked for 240 days as mentioned in the mandays chart and protection envisaged under Section 25-G and 25-H would be attracted in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Bank of India vs. S. Satyam, 1996 (5) SCC 419 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for the applicability of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act, there was no necessity of claimant/petitioner to have worked for 240 days as in case of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

22. In view of foregoing discussion, a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) would be appropriate relief to which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above. It is further made clear that amount of compensation shall be paid within four months from the date of Award failing which the petitioner would be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from date of Award till its realization. Issues no. 1, 2 and 3 are answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO. 3

23. On the plea of non-maintainability of the claim petition under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has failed to allege in reply in what manner petition is not maintainable. Thus, vague plea merits rejection outright. Otherwise also, from pleadings and evidence on record, no inference of claim petition being not maintainable could be raised against claimant/petitioner. This issue is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondent.

RELIEF

24. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, the respondent is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the petitioner in lieu of the reinstatement in services as well as the other consequential service benefits. Amount of compensation so awarded shall be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within four months from today failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay the interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of award till the date of its realization. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

25. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

26. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette.

27. File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.

Announced in the open Court today this 6th day of May, 2016.

(K.K. Sharma)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal,

Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA (HP)

Ref. No. : 05/2015

Date of Institution : 13.1.2015

Date of Decision : 09.5.2016

The Pardhan/Secretary, The Chamba Handloom-Handicraft & Export Corporation Workers Union, Rang Mahal Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

1. The Managing Director, H.P. State Handicraft & Handloom Corporation, Kasumpti, Shimla-171009

2. The Manager, H.P. State Handicrafts & Handloom Corporation, Rang Mahal, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. . .Respondents.

Reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. Jitender Sharma, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Sh. Vivek Vashisth, Adv.

AWARD

The reference given below has been received from the appropriate Government for adjudication:

"Whether demand raised vide revised demand notice dated-nil- received on 24.06.2014 by the Pardhan/Secretary, The Chamba Handloom-Handicraft & Export Corporation Workers Union, Rang Mahal Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. regarding regularization of (10) workers working in H.P. State Handicrafts & Handloom Corporation, Unit Chamba, H.P. namely S/Shri Kishori Lal S/O Shri Tinku Ram, Ramesh Kumar S/O Shri Vishnu Ram, Parkash Chand S/O Shri Hari Singh, Chain Lal S/O Shri Tinku Ram, Suresh Kumar S/O Shri Chatro Ram, Umesh Kumar S/O Shri Karam Chand, Balwant Singh S/O Shri Chatro Ram, Rajesh Kumar S/O Shri Devi Singh, Vidya Devi W/O Shri Dil Bahadur and Sheela Devi W/O Shri Desh Raj as per service and demanded regularization date mentioned in the demand notice before the and to be fulfilled by the (1) The Managing Director, H.P. State Handicraft & Handloom Corporation, Kasumpti, Shimla-171009 (2) The Manager, H.P. State Handicrafts & Handloom Corporation, Rang Mahal, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P. or as per regularization time to time policy of the Government of Himachal Pradesh is legal & justified? If yes, what past service benefits, seniority, monetary and other consequential service benefits the above mentioned workers are entitled to from the above mentioned employers?" 2788 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 2. On receipt of reference from appropriate government, notices were issued to the parties in pursuance to which claimant/petitioner has filed statement of claim.

3. The claimant/petitioner which is a union registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926 has instituted present claim petition under Section 10 (1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 alleging therein that 10 workers whose details are given below have been working for more than 10 years of service and have not been regularized as per state government policy for regularization. The details of employees are given as under:

4. Averments made in the claim petition reveal that State of H.P. formulated a policy of all the corporations and boards whereby the workmen who have put in 10 years of continuous service have been regularized but in this case respondent/corporation has failed to abide by the instructions issued by the State Government from time to time. It is alleged that another unit of Bilaspur Establishment had several workmen who had been regularized in pursuance to reference no.11/2006 decided on 6.12.2010 by the ld. Labour Court Shimla. Against the award dated 6.12.2010, respondent had preferred CWP No.4393/2011 before Hon'ble High Court of H.P. which was dismissed and consequently another SLP bearing no.ec/20588/2011 filed as against the order passed in writ petition was also challenged and the same was also consequently dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The petitioner union approached the respondent for regularization of their services on the basis of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court affirming the rights of workmen of the establishment of respondent corporation but the respondent in this case declined to regularize the services of petitioner union on the plea that in Chamba Complex the workmen were sitting idle who were not actually performing work and due to financial crisis the respondent corporation was not in position to regularize their services. Thereafter, petitioner approached Conciliation Officer, Chamba on 26.7.2012 where the conciliation proceeding were failed and that the reference was made to Labour Court for adjudication controversy inter se the parties but due to some technical fault reference was withdrawn and permission was sought to file a fresh claim which was2789 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 allowed in pursuance to order dated 1.5.2014. Again matter was taken up for conciliation and in its reply management had admitted that workmen of the petitioner union were not getting their salary on account of non availability of work rather due to manner working of these workers, work of the respondent management has running smoothly resultantly the conciliation did not yield due to which the matter was referred to the appropriate government which had consequently made revised reference in the month of December, 2014. The petitioners' have claimed their regularization in service on completion of 10 years service from the date of joining as reflected in the details foregoing paras along-with consequential service benefits, seniority, arrears of difference of wages or to any other relief petitioners are union found entitled.

5. The respondents contested claim petition, filed joint reply inter-alia taken preliminary objections of maintainability, locus standi, and that claimants were not covered under the definition of workman as envisaged under the Industrial Disputes Act. On merits denied that petitioners were daily waged workers engaged by the respondent corporation rather they were engaged from time to time on piece rate wages system for which these workers were entitled to get only weaving charges in proportion to work done by them collectively. However, these workers were consequently paid wages under the Minimum Wages Act. Respondents in its reply have also asserted that workers named in the petition not covered under the policy framed by the State Government in respect of all the corporation and boards. Thus, respondents/corporation facing financial crisis was not in a position to bear the burden on its financial exchequer due to regularization instead the corporation had also informed Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer vide letter dated 22.9.2012 stipulating therein that the corporation had been paying wages to workers since 2002. Accordingly, denying the status of 10 workers of the petitioners union as engaged daily waged workers, the respondents had further contended that due to financial crisis, petitioners union could not be granted benefits as claimed by them.

6. The petitioners filed rejoinder, reiterated their stand as maintained in the claim petition.

7. In order to prove his case, petitioner namely Ramesh Kumar had examined himself as PW1 tendered/proved her affidavit Ex. PW1/A under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, Ex. PW1/B copy reference no. 118/2013, Ex. PW/C, resolution dated 28.3.2015, Ex. PW1/D registration certificate, Ex. PW1/E Reference dated 30.12.2014, Ex. PW1/F revised demand notice, Ex. PW1/G notification dated 26.9.2012, Ex. PW1/H waged letter dated 9.12.2013, Ex. PW1/I wages letter dated 11.11.2013, Ex. PW1/J copy of wages register, Ex. PW1/K copy of bill, Ex. PW1/L copy of wages register , PW1/M detail of workers, letter dated 27.6.2012 Ex. PW1/N, Ex. PW1/O copy of Award dated 6.12.2010, Ex. PW1/P copy of CWP No.4393/2011, Ex. PW1/Q copy of office order, Ex. PW1/R copy of ec no. 20588/2011 and Ex. PX copy of policy of regularization of daily waged workers of govt. of H.P. dated 11th July, 1995 and closed evidence. On the other hand, repudiating the evidence led by the petitioner, respondent examined RW1 Shri Chander Pal Sharma, the then Divisional Manager, H.P. State Handicraft and Handoom Corporation, Chamba tendered/proved his affidavit Ex. RW1/A under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, Ex. RW1/B copy of letter dated 16.12.2007, Ex. RW1/C copy of R&P Rules and Ex. RX copy of letter dated 7th March, 2015 regarding regularization of daily waged workers/contingent paid workers and closed evidence.

8. I have heard the counsel representing petitioner and ld. counsel for respondent, gone through records of the case carefully.

9. From the contentions raised, following issues were framed on 04.7.2015 for determination:

2790 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 1. Whether demands raised vide revised demand notice dated-nil- received on 24.6.2014 by the Pradhan/Secretary, The Chamba Handloom-Handicraft & Export Corporation Workers Union, Rang Mahal Chamba are legal and justified as alleged?

. .OPP.

2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative to what service benefits the petitioner is entitled to? . .OPP.

3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form? . .OPR.

4. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the case as alleged? . .OPR.

5. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to file the present case as alleged? . .OPR.

6. Whether the union is not registered under the provision of law as alleged. If so, its effect? . .OPR.

Relief.

10. For the reasons detailed here under, my findings on the above issues are as follows:—

Issue No.1 : Yes

Issue No.2 : Discussed

Issue No.3 : No

Issue No.4 : No

Issue No.5 : No

Issue No.6 : No

Relief : Petition is allowed per operative part of the Award.

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

ISSUES NO.1, 2 AND 4

11. All these issues have been taken up together for discussion being interconnected which can be disposed of simultaneously without repetition of evidence.

12. At the outset, it is relevant to mention here that collective demand raised by petitioners before the respondent/corporation was regarding their regularization in service of workmen who have rendered having rendered more than 10 years of complete service. The grievance of the petitioners/claimants remains that despite having rendered more than 10 years of service on the date of institution of claim petition, their services have not been regularized so far by the respondent/management. The basic plea which the respondents have taken qua the financial crisis for due to which the claimant/petitioners could not be regularized manifestly supports the plea of petitioners on the point of their legitimate claim for regularization as financial crisis of the respondent/corporation could not be an acceptable ground for decline relief of2791 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 regularization of the services of the petitioners. At the same time, the plea of the respondents also remain that petitioners were not daily waged workers and their status was that of workers getting wages on piece rate basis which follows that petitioners were not on the rolls of the respondents. To appreciate the controversy, it would be relevant to go through documentary evidence led by the parties in support of their respective evidence.

13. Ex. PW1/K is the copy of wages register stipulating therein the payments of wages made to all the 10 claimants/petitioners through RTGS system. Vide Ex. PW1/H of the 10 workmen of the petitioner union were paid a sum of Rs.49890/- each. The subject of the letter also remains payment of wages to these workers with the aid of documents Ex. PW1/H to Ex. PW1/K petitioners have made endevour to establish that they were not piece rate workers rather they were skilled workers who were paid monthly wages according to notification of Government of H.P. as reflected in PW1/G. Ex. PW1/L is service register for the month of November, 2013 in which all the payments have been made directly to the parties who had acknowledged the payment by signing the same. It is admitted case of the parties that no appointment letter was ever given while engaging the petitioners despite they have rendered more than 10 years of service along-with for more than 240 days in each year. In that situation when there is nothing in black and white qua the status of petitioners as daily waged workers or as piece rate workers, it would be relevant to consider the testimony of petitioners on oath to appreciate the plea in retrospective.

14. PW1, Ramesh Kumar, General Secretary of petitioner union has sworn in affidavit Ex. PW1/A in which he has reiterated the stand of petitioner union by asserting that being General Secretary of union he was competent to make statement. He has made statement that the workers mentioned in his affidavit had rendered more 10 years of service who have since not been regularized despite policy of State Government. In his cross-examination, petitioner revealed that he along-with other petitioners had been recruited and promoted as per the rules of the corporation. He has specifically denied that he was made payment of wages as piece rate basis rather maintained that bonus and salary were remitted through the bank accounts. He has admitted that for regularization, existence of vacancy was necessary but he has reiterated stand of claimants/petitioners rights of regularization after rendering 10 years of continuous service in view of govt. policy of the State of H.P. RW1 Chander Pal Sharma, Divisional Manager of respondent corporation has fully supported the plea of respondents but in cross- examination admitted that workers of Bilaspur Unit have been regularized vide Award dated 6.12.2010 against the appeal had been filed. Respondent RW1 in unambiguous terms has admitted that Labour Court Shimla had given a verdict in favour of the workers of Bilaspur unit against which respondent/department had preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. which was dismissed affirming the verdict of the Labour Court Shimla and against the order of the Hon'ble High Court a Special Leave Petition was filed which was also dismissed as was evident from copy of order Ex. PW1/R on record. He has admitted that claimant/petitioners were given minimum wages but clarified the same by stating that it was passed by the Labuor Court. On the point of claimants/petitioners engaged as daily paid workers RW1 who is responsible officer of corporation has maintained that respondent corporation was business organization which had to generate income by its commercial activities and that the respondent corporation engages handloom weavers for manufactures of shawls in the centre from time to time on piece rate wages system for which these works are entitled to get weaving wages in proportion to work done by them. No one has been examined to prove such plea of RW1. Thus, from testimony of respondent coupled with the facts of record, it is established that respondent was commercial organization whose workers were getting wages according to Minimum Wages Act but it could not be construed from his statement that workers were being paid on piece rate basis and therefore plea of petitioner that all the 10 workers were daily wage workers deserves to be accepted. There is nothing in evidence on record led by the respondent which would establish 2792 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 that petitioners were made or have made payment on piece rate basis on any point of time. Even the plea of piece rate wages of worker before Labour Court Shimla was turned down on the ground that the workers with the Bilaspur Unit too were held to have engaged as daily waged workers. Be it noticed that the respondent has also made futile attempt to establish that petitioners were being working as per need of per piece rate basis but there is no evidence on record establishing that petitioners were factually paid remuneration on the basis of piece rate wages.

15. Had the petitioners been engaged as daily waged workers definitely accounts of day to day working would have been produced by the respondent establishing so as such when petitioners have continuously rendered more 10 years of service as has come in the evidence, denial of right of regularization as per policy of the State Government is manifestly illegal act on part of the respondent corporation as respondent corporation has been making futile attempt to negate claim of claimants/petitioners firstly on the ground of financial crisis which is not established as no such record has been produced by respondent and consequently they are alleged to be piece rate basis workers which too is not established as stated in foregoing paras. As denial of rights of petitioners of regularization in service of 10 years tantamounts to denial of their legal rights to which they are entitled, as such, petitioners are held entitled covered under the policy applicable to all corporation boards and State of H.P. as per judgment of Hon'ble High Court of H.P. case titled as Gauri Dutt vs. State of H.P. reported in Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366 relied by the ld. counsel for petitioners and the relevant para is reproduced below for reference:

C) Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14- Regularization of daily wage workers counting of 10 years-Where employee has rendered service on daily waged basis on separate posts in lower and higher scales- He must be given option whether to be regularized on lower post or wait 10 years to be completed on higher post- If he does not exercise option within 30 days he is to be regularized on lower post. (Paras 18, 19 and 20) After considering all the pros and cons and keeping in view the fact that various anomalous situations may arise we are of the considered view that when an employee completes 10 years of continuous service combined in two scales, an option should be given to the employee to either accept work charge status in the lower scale or he may continue to work on daily rated basis in the higher scale and claim work charge status in the higher scale of completion of 10 years of continuous service in the said scale. In the examples given above employee (A) may prefer to accept work charge status w.e.f. 1.1.2001 even in the lower scale of beldar because otherwise he may have to wait for 9 years before he is granted work charge status. On the other hand, employee (B) in the second example may prefer to delay the grant of work charge status by one year so that he can get work charge status in the higher scale. We feel that in each case the choice should be left to the employee. However, if the employee on being given a change to exercise his option does not convey his option within 30 days, he shall be granted work charge status in the lower scale by combining the service rendered in both the scales. This answers the fourth question". (Para 20)

Similar view was reiterated in judgment reported in (2006) 1 HLJ 152 in which work charged status was granted to workers after 10 years continuous service. As such for the law laid down by Hon'ble Courts aforestated, the claim of petitioners deserves to be allowed.

16. Ld. counsel for petitioners in support of their claim have relied upon a notification no. PER(AP-II)B(2)5/86-III dated 1 1 1 t h July, 1995 dealing with regularization of daily waged workers in the Departments (other than Public Works and Irrigation & Public Health Departments)/Boards/Corporations/Universities, etc. instructions thereof. A bare glance on the above said instructions issued by the State Government for the regularization would also support the plea of petitioners as it also prescribed regularization of workers whether skilled or unskilled who have completed 10 years or more continuous service within the minimum a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year as on March 31, 1995 shall be regularized w.e.f. 1.4.1995. On the other hand, repudiating the evidence led by the petitioners had relied upon latest notification of State Government No. PER (AP)-C- B(2)1/2014 dated 7th May, 2015 which produced for regularization of all the workmen who have put in seven years of service for regularization only against vacant posts in the respective departments. It was observed in sub clause (vi) that 7 years of continuous service is only an eligibility criteria and regularization shall be only from prospective effect i.e. after the date, the orders of regularization is issued after completion of codal formalities. Since it is not the case of respondent that regular posts were vacant rather the rights of petitioners were engaged who had not been not regularized even after more than 15 years keeping in view notification dated 11.7.1995 this court is left with no option but to hold that petitioners who are 10 in numbers have rendered service of different duration existing 10 years but in view of guidelines of the Government provided Ex. PX all the claimants/petitioners shall be deemed to have been regularized w.e.f. 1.4.1995 and the shall be entitled for all consequential benefits from that date except claimant/petitioner at serial no.1 namely Kishori Lal and claimant namely Chain Lal at serial no.4 of the claim petition who would be entitled to similar relief only after completion of 10 years of service from date of appointment. Since the petitioners are daily waged workers having rendered more than 10 years continuous service as stated above, they are liable to be regularized and thus, they shall be entitled for all consequential benefits. As per the policy of the State Government meant for employees of all the corporations as applicable to respondent corporation and for said reason petitioner has locus standi to file the present claim petition and this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent. Issue no.1 is decided in affirmative where as issue no.2 is answered as discussed above.

ISSUE NO.3

17. On the plea of non-maintainability of the claim petition under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, ld. counsel for respondent has failed to allege in reply in what manner petition is not maintainable. Thus, vague plea merits rejection outright. Otherwise also, from pleadings and evidence on record, no inference of claim petition being not maintainable could be raised against claimant/petitioner. This issue is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.

ISSUES NO.5

18. This issue was not pressed by ld. counsel for the respondent at the time of arguments which is decided unpressed in favour of petitioners and against respondents.

ISSUE NO.6

19. Ld. counsel for the respondents contended with vehemence that union is not registered under the provisions of law. Ex. PW1/D is the copy of certificate of registration under Trade Union showing the Chamba Handloom Handicrafts & Export Corporation Workers Union is a registered union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. As such, there is no merit in the objection raised by the respondent/corporation and accordingly, it is held that union is registered and issue is decided in negative in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.

20. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, demand raised by the petitioners union is legal and justified and the reference/claim petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of all 10 petitioners after completion of their 10 years continuous service as stated above per their initial appointment in service along-with all consequential service benefits. The parties, however, shall bear their own costs.

21. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

22. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette.

day of May, 2016.

23. File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room. Announced in the open Court today this 9th

(K. K. Sharma)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P.

___________

IN THE COURT OF K. K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-

CUM- INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

(Camp at Chamba)

Ref: No. 146/ 2016

Sh. Anand Chandra s/o Shri Karam Chandra Mohalla Dharog, Chamba, Distt. Chamba, H.P.

. .Petitioner.

Versus

1. The Employer /Managing Director, M/S GVK Emergency Management and Research Institute, Dharampur, Distt. Solan, H.P.(Principal Employer)

2. The Managing Director, M/S Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Private Limited, C-127, Basement Level, Satguru Infotech, Phase-VIII, Industrial Area Mohali, Punjab (Contractor Company). . .Respondents. 17-05-2016 Present:None.

Case called several times but none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite due service. It is 11.35 A.M. Be awaited and put up after lunch hours.

(K. K. Sharma) Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

Case has been called again several times but none has appeared on behalf of petitioner. It is 3.45 P.M. None appearance of petitioner or his ld. counsel today is indicative of the fact that he is not interested to pursue present reference and accordingly reference is disposed of for non-prosecution.

Reference is answered in the aforesaid terms. The parties to bear their own costs.

Let copy of the Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for information and further necessary action / publication. The file, after completion be consigned to the records.

Announced: 17-05-2016

(K.K.Sharma)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

____________

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-

CUM- INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

(Camp at Chamba)

Ref: No. : 607/2015

Sh. Jai Ram s/o Shri Surma Ram through Shri I.S. Jaryal (General Secretary District Committee, All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC), Head Office: CHEP Stage-II Karian, P.O. Hardaspura, Tehsil & District Chamba, H.P. Salooni District Chamba, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

The Divisional Forest Officer, Chamba Forest Division Chamba, District Chamba, H.P.

. .Respondent. 17-05-2016 Present: Sh. I.S. Jaryal, A.R. for the petitioner. Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy.D.A. for the respondent.

Heard. Case is fixed for filing of statement of claim, but ld. Authorised Representative for the petitioner has made statement qua withdrawal of reference with liberty to file fresh claim as well as to agitate the dispute afresh before the competent authority. Statement recorded and placed on record. In view of the statement so made by ld. Authorised Representative for the petitioner, the reference is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file case afresh before the competent authority.

2. Ordered accordingly. The parties to bear their own costs.

3. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

2796 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 4. Let copy of the Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for information and further necessary action / publication.

5. The file, after completion be consigned to the records.

Announced: 17.05.2016

(K. K. Sharma) Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P

____________

IN THE COURT OF K. K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-

CUM-INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

(Camp at Chamba)

Ref: No. : 609/2015

Sh. Sanjay Kumar through Shri I.S. Jaryal (General Secretary District Committee, All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC), Head Office: CHEP Stage-II Karian, P.O. Hardaspura, Tehsil & District Chamba, H.P. Salooni District Chamba, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

The Divisional Forest Officer, Chamba Forest Division Chamba, District Chamba, H.P.

. .Respondent. 17-05-2016 Present: Sh. I.S. Jaryal, A.R. for the petitioner. Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy.D.A. for the respondent.

Heard. Case is fixed for filing of statement of claim, but ld. Authorised Representative for the petitioner has made statement qua withdrawal of reference with liberty to file fresh claim as well as to agitate the dispute afresh before the competent authority. Statement recorded and placed on record. In view of the statement so made by ld. Authorised Representative for the petitioner, the reference is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file case afresh before the competent authority.

2. Ordered accordingly. The parties to bear their own costs.

3. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

4. Let copy of the Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for information and further necessary action / publication.

5. The file, after completion be consigned to the records.

Announced: 17.05.2016

(K.K.Sharma) Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-

CUM- INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

(Camp at Chamba)

Ref: No. 113/ 2016

Sh. Narinder Kumar s/o Shri Hardyal, r/o Village Chaun, P.O. Sarol, Tehsil & District Chamba, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

The Executive Engineer, Chamba Division, HPPWD. Chamba, District Chamba, H.P.

. .Respondent. 18-05-2016 Present: None for the petitioner.

Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A. for the respondent.

Case called. It is 11.30 A.M. Be awaited and put up after lunch hours.

(K. K. Sharma)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

___________

18-05-2016 Present: None for the petitioner.

Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A. for the respondent.

Case has been called again several times but none has appeared on behalf of petitioner. It is 3.45 P.M. None appearance of petitioner or his ld. counsel today is indicative of the fact that he is not interested to pursue present reference and accordingly reference is disposed of for non- prosecution.

Reference is answered in the aforesaid terms. The parties to bear their own costs.

Let copy of the Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for information and further necessary action / publication. The file, after completion be consigned to the records.

Announced: 18-05-2016

(K.K.Sharma) Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA (HP)

(CAMP AT CHAMBA)

Ref. No. : 239/2015

Date of Institution : 10.06.2015

Date of Decision : 18.05.2016

Shri Bansi Lal s/o Shri Tikka Ram, r/o Village Thandal, P.O. Purthi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

Executive Engineer, Killar Division, I.&P.H./H.P.P.W.D. Division Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. . .Respondent.

Reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. I.S. Jaryal, AR

For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A.

AWARD

The reference given below has been received from the appropriate Government for adjudication:

"Whether the industrial dispute raised by the worker Shri Bansi Lal S/O Shri Tikka Ram, R/O Village Thandal, P.O. Purthi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. before the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, I.&P.H/H.P.P.W.D. Division Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. vide demand notice dated-nil-received on 08.05.2012 regarding his alleged termination of service during September, 2004 suffers from vice of delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Shri Bansi Lal S/O Shri Tikka Ram, R/O Village Thandal, P.O. Purthi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, I.&P.H./H.P.P.W.D. Division, Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. during September, 2004 without complying 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 aggrieved workman is entitled to from the above employer?"

2. On receipt of reference from appropriate government, notices were issued to the parties in pursuance to which claimant/petitioner has filed statement of claim.

3. Brief facts leading to institution of the present claim petition by the petitioner above named reveal that he had been initially engaged as daily waged beldar on muster roll basis in the month of June, 1994 who continuously worked till September, 2004 in IPH/HPPWD Sub Division Killar. Averments made in the petition further revealed that petitioner had worked for 160 days in each calendar year as prescribed for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil District Chamba and became eligible for continuous service envisaged under statutory provisions of Section 25- B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for2799 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 brevity). Averments made in the petition revealed that the services of petitioner had interrupted by way of intermittent/artificial breaks given by the respondent/department deliberately and as such breaks are required to be counted as continuous services for the purposes of calculation of 160 days so as for the applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. The grievance of petitioner remains that respondent/department had terminated/disengaged petitioner from daily wage service in the end of September, 2004 by an oral order without any reason whereas several other co-workers who were junior to petitioner had been retained on muster roll and thus the action of respondent/department was stated to be unjustified and malafide. It is alleged that seniority list of daily wage workers working under the respondent had not been circulated till termination/retrenchment of the petitioner and while retrenching the services of petitioner, even principle of 'Last come First go' had not been followed by the department/respondent. The petitioner has named 27 persons who were junior to petitioner and joined service from 1st August, 1997 to 1st September, 2007. In the end of month of September, 2004 when the services of petitioner were terminated by way of oral order, he was not served with one month notice of retrenchment and at the same time one month's wages in lieu of notice period had also not been paid to him and for said reason termination of the services of petitioner was prima facie illegal and unwarranted. The claimant/petitioner claimed that he had spotless service record who never been charge-sheeted for any act of indiscipline or negligence or his conduct and even at the time of verbal termination, no charge-sheet had been served upon him and the at the same time, no opportunity of hearing had been afforded to him. The petitioner also alleges that he has remained unemployed ever since his illegal termination from month of September, 2004 till the date of institution of present claim petition who had been nowhere gainfully employed and was thus entitled for full back wages. Accordingly alleging respondent to have committed violation of statutory provision of Section 25-F, Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for setting aside oral order of termination/retrenchment by the respondent in the month of September, 2004. He further prayed for reinstatement in service w.e.f. month of September, 2004 along-with back wages, seniority including continuity in service as petitioner has remained unemployed since the date of his illegal termination. The petitioner has also prayed that period of intermittent/fictional breaks given time and again during entire service of petitioner between June, 1994 to September, 2004 be counted 160 days continuous service and regularization of the service of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2002 having completed 8 years of service and per the policy of HP Govt. in pursuance to judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and to any other relief petitioner is entitled.

4. The respondent contested claim petition, filed reply inter-alia taken preliminary objections of maintainability, claim petition being bad on account of delay and laches. On merits denied that petitioner had worked for more than 160 days in each calendar year rather clarified by stating that petitioner was engaged as daily waged beldar in 1994 who remained engaged till 2004 but had worked intermittently as petitioner used to come and attend the work at his own sweet will and convenience. Relying upon the mandays chart, it has been categorically pleaded by the respondent that petitioner had not completed 160 days in each calendar year as required for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil. Allegations of fictional breaks given by respondent to the petitioner have been denied. In so far as engagement of persons junior to petitioner mentioned at serial nos. 1 to 25 in para no. 4 of the claim petition were appointed as per order of Labour Court and at serial nos. 26 & 27 as harness case. On the plea of termination of service of petitioner, respondent specifically alleges that petitioner had left the job at his own will therefore serving of notice or pay in lieu thereof was not required. Reiterating its stand respondent has maintained that petitioner had left the work of his own sweet will and the persons mentioned in para no.7 are stated to have engaged as per direction of the Labour Court- cum-Industrial Tribunal Dharamshala as harness case. It is also contended that if petitioner had been terminated in 2004 he would have definitely raised industrial dispute immediately and that 2800 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 after ten years petitioner is stated to be agitating the matter which is bad on account of delay and laches. It is also contended that since the services of petitioner had not been terminated by the respondent, question of issuance of notice or wages in lieu thereof did not arise and at the same time, there was no necessity for charge-sheet or issuing any notice of petitioner after his termination. It is contended that petitioner was agriculturist and gainfully employed and was thus not entitled for back wages.

5. The petitioner filed rejoinder, reiterated his stand as maintained in the claim petition. Further asserted that provisions of Limitation Act did not eclipse the claim of petitioner in totality besides allegation of violation of principle of 'Last come First go' was specifically denied.

6. In order to prove his case, petitioner had examined himself as PW1 tendered/proved his affidavit Ex. PW1/A under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, Ex. PW1/B to PW1/L mandays charts of junior workers and closed evidence. On the other hand, repudiating the evidence led by the petitioner, respondent examined RW1 Shri Bal Krishan Kapil, the then Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Killar as RW1 tendered/proved mandays chart of petitioner Ex. RW1/B, mandays chart of other co-workers Ex. RW1/C, Ex. RW1/D1 to Ex. RW1/D21 copy of orders/awards and closed the evidence.

7. I have heard the ld. Authorized Representative of petitioner and ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent, gone through records of the case carefully relevant for disposed of this case. 8. From the contentions raised, following issues were framed on 12.01.2016 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated nil received on 8.5.2012 qua his/her termination of service during September, 2004 by respondent suffers from vice of delay and laches as alleged? If so, its effect? . .OPP.

2. Whether termination of the services of petitioner by the respondent during September, 2004 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged? If so, its effect? . .OPP.

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

4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? . .OPR.

Relief.

9. For the reasons detailed here under, my findings on the above issues are as follows:—

Issue No.1 : Yes

Issue No.2 : Yes

Issue No.3 : Discussed

Issue No.4 : No

Relief. : Petition is partly allowed awarding compensation Rs.75,000/- per operative part of award.

ISSUES NO.1, 2 AND 3

10. All these issues have been taken up together for discussion being interconnected which can be disposed of simultaneously without repetition of evidence.

11. Relationship of petitioner having been engaged as daily waged beldar by respondent on muster roll basis in the year 1994 who continuously worked till 2004 with the respondent/department is not in dispute. Admittedly, petitioner was engaged without any written order or settlement of terms and conditions by the respondent. It is equally not in dispute that no written order was passed while terminating service of the petitioner as claim of respondent remains that it had not retrenched petitioner from service who had abandoned the job of his own and used to work intermittently as per his own wish and convenience. Admittedly, the reference of appropriate govt. does not relate to plea of fictional breaks but only with regard to petitioner's termination from service. In the backdrop of foregoing admitted facts on record, claim of petitioner requires to be adjudicated with a view to determine if petitioner is entitled for relief of reinstatement and back wages along-with seniority and past service benefits and compensation as claimed by him.

12. Stepping into witness box as PW1 has sworn in affidavit Ex. PW1/A reiterating and reaffirming his pleadings as stipulated in claim petition. In his affidavit he has claimed to have worked with the respondent/department for more than 160 days in Pangi Sub Division Chamba District and remained engaged from 1994 to September, 2004. He has also stated on oath that no notice under Section 25-F of the Act was given by the respondent before terminating his service and at the same time no compensation in lieu thereof notice period was paid to him and thus his termination was illegal and void entitling petitioner benefit of reinstatement of service with full back wages and all the other consequential service benefits. The petitioner has further alleged on oath that respondent/department after terminating his services in September, 2004 by oral order had engaged several co-workers who were junior to petitioner were retained in service. Not only this, the persons who were junior to petitioner are stated to have been regularized in service and thus respondent had not followed the mandate of Sections 25-G and 25- H of the Act which was obligatory on its part. The case of petitioner also remains that he had served respondent with due diligence and had spotless service record as respondent/department had never called any explanation or raised charge-sheet against him but even while retrenching petitioner from service, no notice was given. The petitioner has also explained reason for not approaching the authorities under Labour Act and thereafter before this Tribunal and petitioner had moved before the Labour Officer raising demand notice consequent upon which a failure report was submitted and as the Labour Commissioner did not make reference for industrial dispute raised by petitioner, the petitioner had moved before the Hon'ble High Court by filing CWP where direction was passed for making reference to the Labour Court due to which delay had occurred and same was satisfactorily explained.

13. In so far as plea of abandonment raised by respondent is concerned, the same merits rejection in view of the fact that respondent had failed to produce any record by which it could be established that whenever petitioner absented from his duty as also reflected in mandays chart Ex. RW1/B any notice or letter was ever issued. On this point respondent as RW1 has specifically admitted that whenever petitioner abandoned the job, no notice had been issued. RW1 specifically admitted that no departmental inquiry was initiated against petitioner even after September, 2004. No reason whatsoever has been assigned for such any action or omission on the part of respondent in not initiating any departmental proceedings or making correspondence calling upon the petitioner to join service. This prima facie belies the stand taken 2802 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 by the respondent as abandonment has to be proved like any other fact in issue. The petitioner, on the other hand, as PW1 in cross-examination has specifically denied that he used to leave the job in between and attended the work intermittently rather he has claimed that intermittent breaks had been deliberately given to him by the respondent in the service record of petitioner so that petitioner did not complete 160 days of work as required for Pangi Tehsil area and also for applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. As such, in absence of any specific and reliable evidence led by respondent, it would be unsafe to hold that respondent had established plea of abandonment.

14. A bare glance on the mandays chart Ex. RW1/B would reveal that petitioner had worked for 176 days in the year 1994, 136 days in 1995, 161 days in 1996, 28 days in 1999 and 76 days in 2004 and thus a total of his service in 1994 to 2004 in 5 years he had worked for 577 days in his entire service period. Be it noticed that except the years 1995 and 1997 to 2004 petitioner had worked for more than 160 days and as there is no reference from the Labour Commissioner, Shimla on the point of artificial breaks, this court is to confine its findings only with regard to alleged illegal termination. It is evident from mandays chart Ex. RW1/B that in the year 2004 the petitioner had merely worked for 76 days and thus immediately in preceding 12 calendar months from the month of termination of petitioner had not rendered service of 160 days so as to meet requirement of law of having continuous service of one year and thus it was not at all required from respondent to have issued a notice envisaged under Section 25-F of the Act. As such, the respondent is held to have not violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

15. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has contended with vehemence that large number of workers who were junior to petitioner had been appointed from 01.8.1997 to 07.9.1999 and these workers have been retained in service and regularized. The grievance of petitioner remains that principle of 'Last come First go' was not followed as the juniors were retained and services of petitioner despite being senior was terminated without any valid reason. Ex. PW1/B, Ex. PW1/C, Ex. PW1/D are the year-wise mandays of daily waged workers who were junior to the petitioner and had joined in the year 1991 or thereafter whereas Ex. PW1/E to Ex. PW1/L are the mandays chart of other co- workers. All of these co-workers shown in Ex. PW1/C the year-wise mandays details of workers of Division HPPWD Killar were certainly junior to petitioner who were given sufficient work existing in those years more than 200 days in a year whereas the petitioner had been not given muster roll for the whole month. Ex. RW1/C also established that all the co-workers shown in this document have worked for more than 160 days in most of the years although they were junior to petitioner. Evidently, there is no iota of evidence of respondent establishing that petitioner was called upon to join for service at any time after September, 2004 even at the time when junior persons were reengaged. That being so the respondent had certainly violated the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act as the juniors workers mentioned in para no.3 of the affidavit were retained whereas petitioner was senior from these co-workers having joined service in 1991 was terminated and even thereafter respondent omitted to afford opportunity to petitioner for reemployment for work which also violates the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of Central Bank of India vs. S. Satyam, 1996 (5) SCC 419 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for the applicability of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act, there was no necessity of claimant/petitioner to have worked for 240 days as in case of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

16. Repudiating claim of petitioner, the respondent, on the other hand, has made futile attempt to justify engagement of junior workers and their retention in service on the basis of orders of Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Court of H.P. as reflected in Ex. RW1/D1 to Ex RW1/D21. These judgments/orders have been gone through2803 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 which revealed that respondent had wrongly terminated the services of those claimant/petitioner and for said reasons they were directed to be reinstated. Thus, plea that persons were directed to be appointed in pursuance to awards/orders Ext. Rw1/D1 to Ex. RW1/D21 were primarily on the basis of court orders would not defeat the claim of the petitioner as status of these person being junior to petitioner does not get negatived. As such, even when petitioner is proved to have not worked for more than 160 days in preceding 8 years which entitled him for regularization of his service per government policy, yet respondent is not absolved from its accountability of provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act and as such it is held that respondent had violated the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act.

17. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has contended that after petitioner's termination in September, 2004, he had remained unemployed and was not earning anything thereafter as such was entitled for full back wages. Repudiating the arguments of ld. Authorized Representative of petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. for the State has taken this court through cross-examination of the petitioner who has admitted that he had cultivatable land with him and also worked a private labourer. Thus, plea of having remained not gainfully employed gets belied admission of petitioner in cross-examination in which he had maintained that he had been earning from agricultural land as well as he has been working as daily wager privately. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. M. Nagangouda (2007) 10 SCC 765 in which Division Bench comprising of Justice A.R. Lakshmanan and Justice Altamas Kabir had held that 'term gainfully employment would also include self employment wherefrom income is generated. It was income either from employment in an establishment or from self employment merely differentiates the sources from which income is generated, the end use being the same'. Applying the ratio of judgment of 2007 (supra) to this case since the petitioner was earning from his agricultural and manual pursuits, the same were sufficient to maintain him and his family. It is thus held that petitioner was gainfully employed. Be it stated here that Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase's case has held that the Labour Court was not justified in holding that merely because the respondent was receiving agriculture income, he cannot be treated to be engaged in gainful employment. Since the petitioner had income from agriculture pursuits for his livelihood it cannot be stated that petitioner was not gainfully employed and thus would not be entitled full back wages. In view of the forgoing discussion, it is held that the relationship of workman and employer existed between petitioner and respondent and that petitioner was illegally retrenched without compliance of Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Act although remained gainfully employed after his retrenchment. Thus, applying the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court (2007 supra), it may not be erroneous to hold that petitioner was gainfully employed and thus would be not entitled for back wages for the period he was out of job on being terminated by the respondent.

18. Lastly, Ld. Dy. D.A. for State has contended with vehemence that there is inordinate and explained delay which disentitles petitioner relief claimed for by him. On the other hand, ld. Authorized Representative for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014 Lab IC 4266 (SC) and the relevant paras of the judgment are produced below for reference:

"12. Therefore, in our considered view, the observations made by this Court in the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board case (supra) upon which the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana has placed reliance cannot be applied to the fact situation of the case on hand, for the reason that the Labour Court has erroneously rejected the reference without judiciously considering all the relevant2804 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 factors of the case particularly the points of dispute referred to it and answered the 2nd issue regarding the reference being barred by limitation but not on the merits of the case. The said decision has no application to the fact situation and also for the reason the catena of decisions of this Court referred to supra, wherein this Court has categorically held that the provisions of Limitation Act under Article 137 has no application to make reference by the appropriate government to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of existing industrial dispute between workmen and the employer.

13. In the case on hand, no doubt there is a delay in raising the dispute by the appellant; the Labour Court nevertheless has the power to mould the relief accordingly. At the time of adjudication, if the dispute referred to the Labour Court is not adjudicated by it, it does not mean that the dispute ceases to exist. The appropriate government in exercise of its statutory power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act can refer the industrial dispute, between the parties, at any time, to either the jurisdictional Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal as interpreted by this Court in the Avon Services case referred to supra. Therefore, the State Government has rightly exercised its power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act and referred the points of dispute to the Labour Court as the same are in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Avon Services & Sapan Kumar Pandit cases referred to supra.

14. Further, the workman cannot be denied to seek relief only on the

ground of delay in raising the dispute as held in the case of S.M. Nilajkar &

Ors. v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka[4] it was held by this Court as

follows-

"17. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that on account of delay in raising the dispute by the appellants the High Court was justified in denying relief to the appellants. We cannot agree...... In Ratan Chandra Sammanta and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra)1993 AIR SCW 2214, it was held that a casual labourer retrenched by the employer deprives himself of remedy available in law by delay itself, lapse of time results in losing the remedy and the right as well. The delay would certainly be fatal if it has resulted in material evidence relevant to adjudication being lost and rendered not available. However, we do not think that the delay in the case at hand has been so culpable as to disentitle the appellants for any relief....." (Emphasis laid by the Court) In view of the legal principles laid down by this Court in the above judgment, the reference of the industrial dispute made in the case on hand by the State Government to the Labour Court to adjudicate the existing industrial dispute between the parties was made within a reasonable time, considering the circumstances in which the workman was placed, firstly, as there was a criminal case pending against him and secondly, the respondent had assured the workman that he would be reinstated after his acquittal from the criminal case. Moreover, it is reasonable to adjudicate the industrial dispute in spite of the delay in raising and referring the matter, since there is no mention of any loss or unavailability of material evidence due to the delay. Thus, we do not consider the delay in raising the industrial dispute and referring the same to the Labour Court for adjudication as gravely erroneous and it does not debar the workman from claiming rightful relief from his employer.

15. In the case of Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum- Processing Service Society Limited & Anr.[5] this Court has opined that relief cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay, stating that:—

"10. It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the act and that the relief under it2805 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labour court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay in shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/ termination or dismissal. The Court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full back wages....." (Emphasis laid by the Court)

16. Hence, we are of the opinion, having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case that there is no delay or latches on the part of the workman from the date of his acquittal in the criminal case. Thereafter, upon failure of the respondent in adhering to the assurance given to the workman that he would be reinstated after his acquittal from the criminal case, the workman approached the conciliation officer and the State Government to make a reference to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute with regard to the order of dismissal passed by the respondent. Keeping in mind the date of acquittal of the appellant and the date on which he approached the conciliation officer by raising the dispute, since the respondent had not adhered to its assurance, the State Government had rightly referred the dispute for its adjudication. Therefore it cannot be said that there was a delay on the part of the appellant in raising the dispute and getting it referred to the Labour Court by the State Government.

17. Further, the Labour Court on an erroneous assumption of law framed the additional issue regarding the limitation in raising the dispute and its reference by the State Government to the Labour Court. Thus, the Labour Court has ignored the legal principles laid down by this Court in the cases referred to supra. The award passed by the Labour Court was accepted erroneously by both the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court by dismissing the Civil Writ Petition & the Letters Patent Appeal without examining the case in its proper perspective, keeping in view the power of the State Government under Section 10(1)(c) and the object and intendment of the Act. Not adjudicating the existing industrial dispute on merits between the parties referred to it may lead to disruption of industrial peace and harmony, which is the foremost important aspect in Industrial Jurisprudence as the same would affect the public interest at large.

19. Ld. counsel representing respondent department has also contended with vehemence that claim petition is barred by limitation on account of delay and laches. It has been pointed that termination of petitioner in this case took place on 2004 and the industrial dispute was raised after several years of retrenchment. Repudiating the argument by ld. counsel, ld. AR for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment reported in 2007 LHLJ 903 Hon'ble High Court of H.P. (Bhatag Ram's case) in which it has been held that delay in raising dispute may be considered by court at the time of granting final relief however in various other judgments even longer delay has been condoned. In Divisional Manager, HPFC & another vs. Garibu Ram, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 1160, delay of more than 10 years was condoned besides Hon'ble High Court has held that principle of Limitation Act is not applicable to the industrial dispute. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajayab Singh vs. Sirhind Co- operative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Limited and Another, (1999) 6 SCC 82 in which it has been held that the principle of Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply to the proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act.

20. Relying upon the aforestated judgment, it has been contended that claim of petitioner cannot be defeated on the point of delay and laches. Repudiating arguments 2806 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 advanced by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub- Division Kota and Mohan Lal [2013 (139) FLR 125], the relevant para of the judgment are produced below for reference:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 25-F and 10- Limitation Act, 1963- Section 5- Industrial dispute- Termination of service-Finding of Lboaur Court that workman had completed 240 days in calander year and his termination was in violation o section 25-F of the I.D.Act- Wrokman worked from 1.11.1984 to 17.2.1986 in all 286 days during employment. His services terminated on 18.2.1986. Industrial dispute raised after 6 years of termination. Admitted delay of 6 years not kept in view by the Labour Court- Judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court flawed and unsustainable. Reinstatement of the workman not the appropriate relief. In lieu of reinstatement compensation of Rs.one lac directed to be paid to the workman by the appellant- employer within six weeks failing which interest @ workman 9% p.a. will be payable. [Paras 21 and 22] Limitation Act, 1963. Section 5- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Section 25-F- Termination of service- Industrial dispute raised after six years- Limitation Act not applicable to reference made under the I.D. Act-Delay in raising industrial disputes definitely an important circumstances which the Labour Court must keep in view before granting relief".

I have gone through the rival contention of the ld. Authorized Representative as well as ld. Dy. D.A. for State. Keeping in view the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments referred to above it is held that delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely an important circumstance and court has to keep in mind while exercising discretion. In para nos. 20 and 21 of judgment 2013 supra has referred to Gitam Singh's case reported in 2013 (136) FLR 893 (SC) titled as Assistant Engineer Rajasthan Development Corporation and another vs. Geetam Singh observing that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and the delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment (2013 supra) before that workman had worked for 286 days and had raised industrial dispute in 1992 whereas his services have been terminated in 1986 and he raised industrial dispute after six years. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that though compensation awarded by Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court was too low and liable to be enhanced by the Division Bench but surely reinstatement of the workman in the facts and circumstances is not the appropriate relief and thus Hon'ble Apex Court awarded a lump- sum of Rs.1 lakh along-with interest @ 9% per annum if the respondent failed to make payment of compensation within six weeks from the date of judgment. In the case in hand before this court factors which have weighed are that the petitioner in all remained engaged for about 5 years and actually worked for 577 days as per mandays chart on record and that the services of petitioner were disengaged in September, 2004 who worked as non skilled worker and had raised industrial dispute by issuance of demand notice after about 7 ½ years i.e. demand notice was given dated nil. It is also pertinent to mention here that petitioner on the date of filing claim petition was ageing 47 years who has sufficient spell of life to work and earn his livelihood. Taking into consideration factors mentioned above in pursuance to judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court petitioner would not be entitled either for reinstatement or for back wages but compensation a lump-sum would be appropriate relief in view of judgment 2013 (139) FLR 25 (SC). The judgments relied upon by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner on the matter of delay and laches is more or less settled law that claim of the petitioner could not be solely declined on the ground of delay and laches. Similarly, judgment of Hon'ble Apex2807 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 Court in 2014 titled as Raghubir Singh's case also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner as in this judgment also the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the mandate as given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in previous judgment in the year 2013 i.e. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division Kota and Mohan Lal's case. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment titled as Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh v. Akhilesh Kumar Khare & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 3473.

21. In view of foregoing discussion, a lump-sum compensation of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) would be a appropriate relief to which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above. It is further made clear that amount of compensation shall be paid within four months from the date of Award failing which the petitioner would be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from date of Award and its realization. Issues no. 1, 2 and 3 are answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.4

22. On the plea of non-maintainability of the claim petition under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has failed to allege in reply in what manner petition is not maintainable. Thus, vague plea merits rejection outright. Otherwise also, from pleadings and evidence on record, no inference of claim petition being not maintainable could be raised against claimant/petitioner. This issue is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondent.

RELIEF

23. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, the respondent is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) to the petitioner in lieu of the reinstatement in services as well as the other consequential service benefits. Amount of compensation so awarded shall be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within four months from today failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay the interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of award till the date of its realization. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

24. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

25. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette.

26. File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.

Announced in the open Court today this 18th day of May, 2016.

(K. K. Sharma)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

2808 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 IN THE COURT OF K. K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM- INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA, H.P. (Camp at Chamba)

Ref: No. 113/ 2016

Sh. Narinder Kumar s/o Shri Hardyal, r/o Village Chaun, P.O. Sarol, Tehsil & District Chamba, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

The Executive Engineer, Chamba Division, HPPWD. Chamba, District Chamba, H.P.

. .Respondent. 18-05-2016 Present: None for the petitioner.

Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A. for the respondent.

Case called. It is 11.30 A.M. Be awaited and put up after lunch hours.

(K. K. Sharma)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

_____________

18-05-2016 Present: None for the petitioner.

Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A. for the respondent.

Case has been called again several times but none has appeared on behalf of petitioner. It is 3.45 P.M. None appearance of petitioner or his ld. counsel today is indicative of the fact that he is not interested to pursue present reference and accordingly reference is disposed of for non-prosecution.

Reference is answered in the aforesaid terms. The parties to bear their own costs.

Let copy of the Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for information and further necessary action / publication. The file, after completion be consigned to the records.

Announced: 18-05-2016

(K. K. Sharma) Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA (HP)

(CAMP AT CHAMBA)

Ref No. : 239/2015

Date of Institution : 10.06.2015

Date of Decision : 18.05.2016

Shri Bansi Lal s/o Shri Tikka Ram, r/o Village Thandal, P.O. Purthi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. . . Petitioner.

Versus

Executive Engineer, Killar Division, I.&P.H./H.P.P.W.D. Division Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. . .Respondent.

Reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. I.S. Jaryal, AR

For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A.

AWARD

The reference given below has been received from the appropriate Government for adjudication:

"Whether the industrial dispute raised by the worker Shri Bansi Lal S/O Shri Tikka Ram, R/O Village Thandal, P.O. Purthi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. before the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, I.&P.H/H.P.P.W.D. Division Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. vide demand notice dated-nil-received on 08.05.2012 regarding his alleged termination of service during September, 2004 suffers from vice of delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Shri Bansi Lal S/O Shri Tikka Ram, R/O Village Thandal, P.O. Purthi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, I.&P.H./H.P.P.W.D. Division, Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. during September, 2004 without complying 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 aggrieved workman is entitled to from the above employer?"

2. On receipt of reference from appropriate government, notices were issued to the parties in pursuance to which claimant/petitioner has filed statement of claim.

3. Brief facts leading to institution of the present claim petition by the petitioner above named reveal that he had been initially engaged as daily waged beldar on muster roll basis in the month of June, 1994 who continuously worked till September, 2004 in IPH/HPPWD Sub Division Killar. Averments made in the petition further revealed that petitioner had worked for 160 days in each calendar year as prescribed for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil District Chamba and became eligible for continuous service envisaged under statutory provisions of Section 25- B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for 2810 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 brevity). Averments made in the petition revealed that the services of petitioner had interrupted by way of intermittent/artificial breaks given by the respondent/department deliberately and as such breaks are required to be counted as continuous services for the purposes of calculation of 160 days so as for the applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. The grievance of petitioner remains that respondent/department had terminated/disengaged petitioner from daily wage service in the end of September, 2004 by an oral order without any reason whereas several other co-workers who were junior to petitioner had been retained on muster roll and thus the action of respondent/department was stated to be unjustified and malafide. It is alleged that seniority list of daily wage workers working under therespondent had not been circulated till termination/retrenchment of the petitioner and while retrenching the services of petitioner, even principle of 'Last come First go' had not been followed by the department/respondent. The petitioner has named 27 persons who were junior to petitioner and joined service from 1st August, 1997 to 1st September, 2007. In the end of month of September, 2004 when the services of petitioner were terminated by way of oral order, he was not served with one month notice of retrenchment and at the same time one month's wages in lieu of notice period had also not been paid to him and for said reason termination of the services of petitioner was prima facie illegal and unwarranted. The claimant/petitioner claimed that he had spotless service record who never been charge-sheeted for any act of indiscipline or negligence or his conduct and even at the time of verbal termination, no charge-sheet had been served upon him and the at the same time, no opportunity of hearing had been afforded to him. The petitioner also alleges that he has remained unemployed ever since his illegal termination from month of September, 2004 till the date of institution of present claim petition who had been nowhere gainfully employed and was thus entitled for full back wages. Accordingly alleging respondent to have committed violation of statutory provision of Section 25-F, Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for setting aside oral order of termination/retrenchment by the respondent in the month of September, 2004. He further prayed for reinstatement in service w.e.f. month of September, 2004 along-with back wages, seniority including continuity in service as petitioner has remained unemployed since the date of his illegal termination. The petitioner has also prayed that period of intermittent/fictional breaks given time and again during entire service of petitioner between June, 1994 to September, 2004 be counted 160 days continuous service and regularization of the service of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2002 having completed 8 years of service and per the policy of HP Govt. in pursuance to judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and to any other relief petitioner is entitled.

4. The respondent contested claim petition, filed reply inter-alia taken preliminary objections of maintainability, claim petition being bad on account of delay and laches. On merits denied that petitioner had worked for more than 160 days in each calendar year rather clarified by stating that petitioner was engaged as daily waged beldar in 1994 who remained engaged till 2004 but had worked intermittently as petitioner used to come and attend the work at his own sweet will and convenience. Relying upon the mandays chart, it has been categorically pleaded by the respondent that petitioner had not completed 160 days in each calendar year as required for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil. Allegations of fictional breaks given by respondent to the petitioner have been denied. In so far as engagement of persons junior to petitioner mentioned at serial nos. 1 to 25 in para no. 4 of the claim petition were appointed as per order of Labour Court and at serial nos. 26 & 27 as harness case. On the plea of termination of service of petitioner, respondent specifically alleges that petitioner had left the job at his own will therefore serving of notice or pay in lieu thereof was not required. Reiterating its stand respondent has maintained that petitioner had left the work of his own sweet will and the persons mentioned in para no.7 are stated to have engaged as per direction of the Labour Court- cum-Industrial Tribunal Dharamshala as harness case. It is also contended that if petitioner had been terminated in 2004 he would have definitely raised industrial dispute immediately and that2811 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 after ten years petitioner is stated to be agitating the matter which is bad on account of delay and laches. It is also contended that since the services of petitioner had not been terminated by the respondent, question of issuance of notice or wages in lieu thereof did not arise and at the same time, there was no necessity for charge-sheet or issuing any notice of petitioner after his termination. It is contended that petitioner was agriculturist and gainfully employed and was thus not entitled for back wages.

5. The petitioner filed rejoinder, reiterated his stand as maintained in the claim petition. Further asserted that provisions of Limitation Act did not eclipse the claim of petitioner in totality besides allegation of violation of principle of 'Last come First go' was specifically denied.

6. In order to prove his case, petitioner had examined himself as PW1 tendered/proved his affidavit Ex. PW1/A under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, Ex. PW1/B to PW1/L mandays charts of junior workers and closed evidence. On the other hand, repudiating the evidence led by the petitioner, respondent examined RW1 Shri Bal Krishan Kapil, the then Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Killar as RW1 tendered/proved mandays chart of petitioner Ex. RW1/B, mandays chart of other co-workers Ex. RW1/C, Ex. RW1/D1 to Ex. RW1/D21 copy of orders/awards and closed the evidence.

7. I have heard the ld. Authorized Representative of petitioner and ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent, gone through records of the case carefully relevant for disposed of this case.

8. From the contentions raised, following issues were framed on 12.01.2016 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated nil received on 8.5.2012 qua his/her termination of service during September, 2004 by respondent suffers from vice of delay and laches as alleged? If so, its effect? . .OPP.

2. Whether termination of the services of petitioner by the respondent during September, 2004 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged? If so, its effect? . .OPP.

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

4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? . .OPR.

Relief.

9. For the reasons detailed here under, my findings on the above issues are as follows:—

Issue No.1 : Yes

Issue No.2 : Yes

Issue No.3 : Discussed

Issue No.4 : No

Relief. : Petition is partly allowed awarding compensation Rs.75,000/- per operative part of award.

ISSUES NO.1, 2 AND 3

10. All these issues have been taken up together for discussion being interconnected which can be disposed of simultaneously without repetition of evidence.

11. Relationship of petitioner having been engaged as daily waged beldar by respondent on muster roll basis in the year 1994 who continuously worked till 2004 with the respondent/department is not in dispute. Admittedly, petitioner was engaged without any written order or settlement of terms and conditions by the respondent. It is equally not in dispute that no written order was passed while terminating service of the petitioner as claim of respondent remains that it had not retrenched petitioner from service who had abandoned the job of his own and used to work intermittently as per his own wish and convenience. Admittedly, the reference of appropriate govt. does not relate to plea of fictional breaks but only with regard to petitioner's termination from service. In the backdrop of foregoing admitted facts on record, claim of petitioner requires to be adjudicated with a view to determine if petitioner is entitled for relief of reinstatement and back wages along-with seniority and past service benefits and compensation as claimed by him.

12. Stepping into witness box as PW1 has sworn in affidavit Ex. PW1/A reiterating and reaffirming his pleadings as stipulated in claim petition. In his affidavit he has claimed to have worked with the respondent/department for more than 160 days in Pangi Sub Division Chamba District and remained engaged from 1994 to September, 2004. He has also stated on oath that no notice under Section 25-F of the Act was given by the respondent before terminating his service and at the same time no compensation in lieu thereof notice period was paid to him and thus his termination was illegal and void entitling petitioner benefit of reinstatement of service with full back wages and all the other consequential service benefits. The petitioner has further alleged on oath that respondent/department after terminating his services in September, 2004 by oral order had engaged several co-workers who were junior to petitioner were retained in service. Not only this, the persons who were junior to petitioner are stated to have been regularized in service and thus respondent had not followed the mandate of Sections 25-G and 25- H of the Act which was obligatory on its part. The case of petitioner also remains that he had served respondent with due diligence and had spotless service record as respondent/department had never called any explanation or raised charge-sheet against him but even while retrenching petitioner from service, no notice was given. The petitioner has also explained reason for not approaching the authorities under Labour Act and thereafter before this Tribunal and petitioner had moved before the Labour Officer raising demand notice consequent upon which a failure report was submitted and as the Labour Commissioner did not make reference for industrial dispute raised by petitioner, the petitioner had moved before the Hon'ble High Court by filing CWP where direction was passed for making reference to the Labour Court due to which delay had occurred and same was satisfactorily explained.

13. In so far as plea of abandonment raised by respondent is concerned, the same merits rejection in view of the fact that respondent had failed to produce any record by which it could be established that whenever petitioner absented from his duty as also reflected in mandays chart Ex. RW1/B any notice or letter was ever issued. On this point respondent as RW1 has specifically admitted that whenever petitioner abandoned the job, no notice had been issued. RW1 specifically admitted that no departmental inquiry was initiated against petitioner even after September, 2004. No reason whatsoever has been assigned for such any action or omission on the part of respondent in not initiating any departmental proceedings or making correspondence calling upon the petitioner to join service. This prima facie belies the stand taken2813 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 by the respondent as abandonment has to be proved like any other fact in issue. The petitioner, on the other hand, as PW1 in cross-examination has specifically denied that he used to leave the job in between and attended the work intermittently rather he has claimed that intermittent breaks had been deliberately given to him by the respondent in the service record of petitioner so that petitioner did not complete 160 days of work as required for Pangi Tehsil area and also for applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. As such, in absence of any specific and reliable evidence led by respondent, it would be unsafe to hold that respondent had established plea of abandonment.

14. A bare glance on the mandays chart Ex. RW1/B would reveal that petitioner had worked for 176 days in the year 1994, 136 days in 1995, 161 days in 1996, 28 days in 1999 and 76 days in 2004 and thus a total of his service in 1994 to 2004 in 5 years he had worked for 577 days in his entire service period. Be it noticed that except the years 1995 and 1997 to 2004 petitioner had worked for more than 160 days and as there is no reference from the Labour Commissioner, Shimla on the point of artificial breaks, this court is to confine its findings only with regard to alleged illegal termination. It is evident from mandays chart Ex. RW1/B that in the year 2004 the petitioner had merely worked for 76 days and thus immediately in preceding 12 calendar months from the month of termination of petitioner had not rendered service of 160 days so as to meet requirement of law of having continuous service of one year and thus it was not at all required from respondent to have issued a notice envisaged under Section 25-F of the Act. As such, the respondent is held to have not violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

15. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has contended with vehemence that large number of workers who were junior to petitioner had been appointed from 01.8.1997 to 07.9.1999 and these workers have been retained in service and regularized. The grievance of petitioner remains that principle of 'Last come First go' was not followed as the juniors were retained and services of petitioner despite being senior was terminated without any valid reason. Ex. PW1/B, Ex. PW1/C, Ex. PW1/D are the year-wise mandays of daily waged workers who were junior to the petitioner and had joined in the year 1991 or thereafter whereas Ex. PW1/E to Ex. PW1/L are the mandays chart of other co- workers. All of these co-workers shown in Ex. PW1/C the year-wise mandays details of workers of Division HPPWD Killar were certainly junior to petitioner who were given sufficient work existing in those years more than 200 days in a year whereas the petitioner had been not given muster roll for the whole month. Ex. RW1/C also established that all the co-workers shown in this document have worked for more than 160 days in most of the years although they were junior to petitioner. Evidently, there is no iota of evidence of respondent establishing that petitioner was called upon to join for service at any time after September, 2004 even at the time when junior persons were reengaged. That being so the respondent had certainly violated the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act as the juniors workers mentioned in para no.3 of the affidavit were retained whereas petitioner was senior from these co-workers having joined service in 1991 was terminated and even thereafter respondent omitted to afford opportunity to petitioner for reemployment for work which also violates the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of Central Bank of India vs. S. Satyam, 1996 (5) SCC 419 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for the applicability of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act, there was no necessity of claimant/petitioner to have worked for 240 days as in case of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

16. Repudiating claim of petitioner, the respondent, on the other hand, has made futile attempt to justify engagement of junior workers and their retention in service on the basis of orders of Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Court of H.P. as reflected in Ex. RW1/D1 to Ex RW1/D21. These judgments/orders have been gone through 2814 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 which revealed that respondent had wrongly terminated the services of those claimant/petitioner and for said reasons they were directed to be reinstated. Thus, plea that persons were directed to be appointed in pursuance to awards/orders Ext. Rw1/D1 to Ex. RW1/D21 were primarily on the basis of court orders would not defeat the claim of the petitioner as status of these person being junior to petitioner does not get negatived. As such, even when petitioner is proved to have not worked for more than 160 days in preceding 8 years which entitled him for regularization of his service per government policy, yet respondent is not absolved from its accountability of provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act and as such it is held that respondent had violated the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act.

17. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has contended that after petitioner's termination in September, 2004, he had remained unemployed and was not earning anything thereafter as such was entitled for full back wages. Repudiating the arguments of ld. Authorized Representative of petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. for the State has taken this court through cross-examination of the petitioner who has admitted that he had cultivatable land with him and also worked a private labourer. Thus, plea of having remained not gainfully employed gets belied admission of petitioner in cross-examination in which he had maintained that he had been earning from agricultural land as well as he has been working as daily wager privately. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. M. Nagangouda (2007) 10 SCC 765 in which Division Bench comprising of Justice A.R. Lakshmanan and Justice Altamas Kabir had held that 'term gainfully employment would also include self employment wherefrom income is generated. It was income either from employment in an establishment or from self employment merely differentiates the sources from which income is generated, the end use being the same'. Applying the ratio of judgment of 2007 (supra) to this case since the petitioner was earning from his agricultural and manual pursuits, the same were sufficient to maintain him and his family. It is thus held that petitioner was gainfully employed. Be it stated here that Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase's case has held that the Labour Court was not justified in holding that merely because the respondent was receiving agriculture income, he cannot be treated to be engaged in gainful employment. Since the petitioner had income from agriculture pursuits for his livelihood it cannot be stated that petitioner was not gainfully employed and thus would not be entitled full back wages. In view of the forgoing discussion, it is held that the relationship of workman and employer existed between petitioner and respondent and that petitioner was illegally retrenched without compliance of Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Act although remained gainfully employed after his retrenchment. Thus, applying the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court (2007 supra), it may not be erroneous to hold that petitioner was gainfully employed and thus would be not entitled for back wages for the period he was out of job on being terminated by the respondent.

18. Lastly, Ld. Dy. D.A. for State has contended with vehemence that there is inordinate and explained delay which disentitles petitioner relief claimed for by him. On the other hand, ld. Authorized Representative for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014 Lab IC 4266 (SC) and the relevant paras of the judgment are produced below for reference:

"12. Therefore, in our considered view, the observations made by this Court in the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board case (supra) upon which the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana has placed reliance cannot be applied to the fact situation of the case on hand, for the reason that the Labour Court has erroneously rejected the reference without judiciously considering all the relevant2815 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 factors of the case particularly the points of dispute referred to it and answered the 2nd issue regarding the reference being barred by limitation but not on the merits of the case. The said decision has no application to the fact situation and also for the reason the catena of decisions of this Court referred to supra, wherein this Court has categorically held that the provisions of Limitation Act under Article 137 has no application to make reference by the appropriate government to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of existing industrial dispute between workmen and the employer.

13. In the case on hand, no doubt there is a delay in raising the dispute by the appellant; the Labour Court nevertheless has the power to mould the relief accordingly. At the time of adjudication, if the dispute referred to the Labour Court is not adjudicated by it, it does not mean that the dispute ceases to exist. The appropriate government in exercise of its statutory power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act can refer the industrial dispute, between the parties, at any time, to either the jurisdictional Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal as interpreted by this Court in the Avon Services case referred to supra. Therefore, the State Government has rightly exercised its power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act and referred the points of dispute to the Labour Court as the same are in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Avon Services & Sapan Kumar Pandit cases referred to supra.

14. Further, the workman cannot be denied to seek relief only on the ground of

delay in raising the dispute as held in the case of S.M. Nilajkar & Ors. v. Telecom

District Manager, Karnataka[4] it was held by this Court as follows-

"17. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that on account of delay in raising the dispute by the appellants the High Court was justified in denying relief to the appellants. We cannot agree...... In Ratan Chandra Sammanta and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra)1993 AIR SCW 2214, it was held that a casual labourer retrenched by the employer deprives himself of remedy available in law by delay itself, lapse of time results in losing the remedy and the right as well. The delay would certainly be fatal if it has resulted in material evidence relevant to adjudication being lost and rendered not available. However, we do not think that the delay in the case at hand has been so culpable as to disentitle the appellants for any relief....." (Emphasis laid by the Court) In view of the legal principles laid down by this Court in the above judgment, the reference of the industrial dispute made in the case on hand by the State Government to the Labour Court to adjudicate the existing industrial dispute between the parties was made within a reasonable time, considering the circumstances in which the workman was placed, firstly, as there was a criminal case pending against him and secondly, the respondent had assured the workman that he would be reinstated after his acquittal from the criminal case. Moreover, it is reasonable to adjudicate the industrial dispute in spite of the delay in raising and referring the matter, since there is no mention of any loss or unavailability of material evidence due to the delay. Thus, we do not consider the delay in raising the industrial dispute and referring the same to the Labour Court for adjudication as gravely erroneous and it does not debar the workman from claiming rightful relief from his employer.

15. In the case of Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum- Processing Service Society Limited & Anr.[5] this Court has opined that relief cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay, stating that:-

"10. It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the act and that the relief under it2816 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labour court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay in shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/ termination or dismissal. The Court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full back wages....." (Emphasis laid by the Court)

16. Hence, we are of the opinion, having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case that there is no delay or latches on the part of the workman from the date of his acquittal in the criminal case. Thereafter, upon failure of the respondent in adhering to the assurance given to the workman that he would be reinstated after his acquittal from the criminal case, the workman approached the conciliation officer and the State Government to make a reference to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute with regard to the order of dismissal passed by the respondent. Keeping in mind the date of acquittal of the appellant and the date on which he approached the conciliation officer by raising the dispute, since the respondent had not adhered to its assurance, the State Government had rightly referred the dispute for its adjudication. Therefore it cannot be said that there was a delay on the part of the appellant in raising the dispute and getting it referred to the Labour Court by the State Government.

17. Further, the Labour Court on an erroneous assumption of law framed the additional issue regarding the limitation in raising the dispute and its reference by the State Government to the Labour Court. Thus, the Labour Court has ignored the legal principles laid down by this Court in the cases referred to supra. The award passed by the Labour Court was accepted erroneously by both the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court by dismissing the Civil Writ Petition & the Letters Patent Appeal without examining the case in its proper perspective, keeping in view the power of the State Government under Section 10(1)(c) and the object and intendment of the Act. Not adjudicating the existing industrial dispute on merits between the parties referred to it may lead to disruption of industrial peace and harmony, which is the foremost important aspect in Industrial Jurisprudence as the same would affect the public interest at large.

19. Ld. counsel representing respondent department has also contended with vehemence that claim petition is barred by limitation on account of delay and laches. It has been pointed that termination of petitioner in this case took place on 2004 and the industrial dispute was raised after several years of retrenchment. Repudiating the argument by ld. counsel, ld. AR for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment reported in 2007 LHLJ 903 Hon'ble High Court of H.P. (Bhatag Ram's case) in which it has been held that delay in raising dispute may be considered by court at the time of granting final relief however in various other judgments even longer delay has been condoned. In Divisional Manager, HPFC & another vs. Garibu Ram, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 1160, delay of more than 10 years was condoned besides Hon'ble High Court has held that principle of Limitation Act is not applicable to the industrial dispute. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajayab Singh vs. Sirhind Co- operative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Limited and Another, (1999) 6 SCC 82 in which it has been held that the principle of Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply to the proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act.

20. Relying upon the aforestated judgment, it has been contended that claim of petitioner cannot be defeated on the point of delay and laches. Repudiating arguments advanced by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub- Division Kota and Mohan Lal [2013 (139) FLR 125], the relevant para of the judgment are produced below for reference:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 25-F and 10- Limitation Act, 1963- Section 5- Industrial dispute- Termination of service-Finding of Lboaur Court that workman had completed 240 days in calander year and his termination was in violation o section 25-F of the I.D.Act- Wrokman worked from 1.11.1984 to 17.2.1986 in all 286 days during employment. His services terminated on 18.2.1986. Industrial dispute raised after 6 years of termination. Admitted delay of 6 years not kept in view by the Labour Court- Judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court flawed and unsustainable. Reinstatement of the workman not the appropriate relief. In lieu of reinstatement compensation of Rs.one lac directed to be paid to the workman by the appellant- employer within six weeks failing which interest @ workman 9% p.a. will be payable. [Paras 21 and 22] Limitation Act, 1963. Section 5- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Section 25-F- Termination of service- Industrial dispute raised after six years- Limitation Act not applicable to reference made under the I.D. Act-Delay in raising industrial disputes definitely an important circumstances which the Labour Court must keep in view before granting relief".

I have gone through the rival contention of the ld. Authorized Representative as well as ld. Dy. D.A. for State. Keeping in view the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments referred to above it is held that delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely an important circumstance and court has to keep in mind while exercising discretion. In para nos. 20 and 21 of judgment 2013 supra has referred to Gitam Singh's case reported in 2013 (136) FLR 893 (SC) titled as Assistant Engineer Rajasthan Development Corporation and another vs. Geetam Singh observing that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and the delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment (2013 supra) before that workman had worked for 286 days and had raised industrial dispute in 1992 whereas his services have been terminated in 1986 and he raised industrial dispute after six years. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that though compensation awarded by Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court was too low and liable to be enhanced by the Division Bench but surely reinstatement of the workman in the facts and circumstances is not the appropriate relief and thus Hon'ble Apex Court awarded a lump- sum of Rs.1 lakh along-with interest @ 9% per annum if the respondent failed to make payment of compensation within six weeks from the date of judgment. In the case in hand before this court factors which have weighed are that the petitioner in all remained engaged for about 5 years and actually worked for 577 days as per mandays chart on record and that the services of petitioner were disengaged in September, 2004 who worked as non skilled worker and had raised industrial dispute by issuance of demand notice after about 7 ½ years i.e. demand notice was given dated nil. It is also pertinent to mention here that petitioner on the date of filing claim petition was ageing 47 years who has sufficient spell of life to work and earn his livelihood. Taking into consideration factors mentioned above in pursuance to judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court petitioner would not be entitled either for reinstatement or for back wages but compensation a lump-sum would be appropriate relief in view of judgment 2013 (139) FLR 25 (SC). The judgments relied upon by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner on the 2818 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 matter of delay and laches is more or less settled law that claim of the petitioner could not be solely declined on the ground of delay and laches. Similarly, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in 2014 titled as Raghubir Singh's case also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner as in this judgment also the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the mandate as given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in previous judgment in the year 2013 i.e. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division Kota and Mohan Lal's case. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment titled as Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh v. Akhilesh Kumar Khare & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 3473.

21. In view of foregoing discussion, a lump-sum compensation of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) would be a appropriate relief to which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above. It is further made clear that amount of compensation shall be paid within four months from the date of Award failing which the petitioner would be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from date of Award and its realization. Issues no. 1, 2 and 3 are answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.4

22. On the plea of non-maintainability of the claim petition under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has failed to allege in reply in what manner petition is not maintainable. Thus, vague plea merits rejection outright. Otherwise also, from pleadings and evidence on record, no inference of claim petition being not maintainable could be raised against claimant/petitioner. This issue is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondent.

RELIEF

23. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, the respondent is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) to the petitioner in lieu of the reinstatement in services as well as the other consequential service benefits. Amount of compensation so awarded shall be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within four months from today failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay the interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of award till the date of its realization. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

24. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

25. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette.

26. File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.

Announced in the open Court today this 18th day of May, 2016.

(K. K. Sharma)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA (HP)

(CAMP AT CHAMBA)

Ref. No. : 238/2015

Date of Institution : 10.06.2015

Date of Decision : 18.05.2016

Shri Rok Nand s/o Shri Madho Ram, r/o Village Thandal, P.O. Purthi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. . . Petitioner.

Versus

Executive Engineer, Killar Division, I.&P.H./H.P.P.W.D. Division Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. . .Respondent.

Reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. I.S. Jaryal, AR

For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A.

AWARD

The reference given below has been received from the appropriate Government for adjudication:

"Whether the industrial dispute raised by the worker Shri Rok Nand S/O Shri Madho Ram, R/O Village Thandal, P.O. Purthi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. before the Executive Engineer, Killar Division I.&P.H./H.P.P.W.D. Division, Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. vide demand notice dated-nil-received on 18.04.2012 regarding his alleged illegal termination of service during September, 2004 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Shri Rok Nand S/O Shri Madho Ram, R/O Village Thandal, P.O. Purthi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, I.&P.H./H.P.P.W.D. Division Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. during September, 2004 without complying 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 aggrieved workman is entitled to from the above employer?"

2. On receipt of reference from appropriate government, notices were issued to the parties in pursuance to which claimant/petitioner has filed statement of claim.

3. Brief facts leading to institution of the present claim petition by the petitioner above named reveal that he had been initially engaged as daily waged beldar on muster roll basis in the year 1994 who continuously worked till September, 2004 in IPH/HPPWD Sub Division Killar. Averments made in the petition further revealed that petitioner had worked for 160 days in each calendar year as prescribed for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil District Chamba and became eligible for continuous service envisaged under statutory provisions of Section 25- B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity).

2820 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 Averments made in the petition revealed that the services of petitioner had interrupted by way of intermittent/artificial breaks given by the respondent/department deliberately and as such breaks are required to be counted as continuous services for the purposes of calculation of 160 days so as for the applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. The grievance of petitioner remains that respondent/department had terminated/disengaged petitioner from daily wage service in the end of September, 2004 by an oral order without any reason whereas several other co-workers who were junior to petitioner had been retained on muster roll and thus the action of respondent/department was stated to be unjustified and malafide. It is alleged that seniority list of daily wage workers working under the respondent had not been circulated till termination/retrenchment of the petitioner and while retrenching the services of petitioner, even principle of 'Last come First go' had not been followed by the department/respondent. The petitioner has named 27 persons who were junior to petitioner and joined service from 1st August, 1997 to 1st September, 2007. In the end of month of September, 2004 when the services of petitioner were terminated by way of oral order, he was not served with one month notice of retrenchment and at the same time one month's wages in lieu of notice period had also not been paid to him and for said reason termination of the services of petitioner was prima facie illegal and unwarranted. The claimant/petitioner claimed that he had spotless service record who never been charge-sheeted for any act of indiscipline or negligence or his conduct and even at the time of verbal termination, no charge-sheet had been served upon him and the at the same time, no opportunity of hearing had been afforded to him. The petitioner also alleges that he has remained unemployed ever since his illegal termination from month of September, 2004 till the date of institution of present claim petition who had been nowhere gainfully employed and was thus entitled for full back wages. Accordingly alleging respondent to have committed violation of statutory provision of Section 25-F, Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for setting aside oral order of termination/retrenchment by the respondent in the month of September, 2004. He further prayed for reinstatement in service w.e.f. month of September, 2004 along-with back wages, seniority including continuity in service as petitioner has remained unemployed since the date of his illegal termination. The petitioner has also prayed that period of intermittent/fictional breaks given time and again during entire service of petitioner between May, 1994 to September, 2004 be counted 160 days continuous service and regularization of the service of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2002 having completed 8 years of service and per the policy of HP Govt. in pursuance to judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and to any other relief petitioner is entitled.

4. The respondent contested claim petition, filed reply inter-alia taken preliminary objections of maintainability, claim petition being bad on account of delay and laches. On merits denied that petitioner had worked for more than 160 days in each calendar year rather clarified by stating that petitioner was engaged as daily waged beldar in 1991 who remained engaged till 2004 but had worked intermittently as petitioner used to come and attend the work at his own sweet will and convenience. Relying upon the mandays chart, it has been categorically pleaded by the respondent that petitioner had not completed 160 days in each calendar year as required for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil. Allegations of fictional breaks given by respondent to the petitioner have been denied. In so far as engagement of persons junior to petitioner mentioned at serial nos. 1 to 25 in para no. 4 of the claim petition were appointed as per order of Labour Court and at serial nos. 26 & 27 as harness case. On the plea of termination of service of petitioner, respondent specifically alleges that petitioner had left the job at his own will therefore serving of notice or pay in lieu thereof was not required. Reiterating its stand respondent has maintained that petitioner had left the work of his own sweet will and the persons mentioned in para no.7 are stated to have engaged as per direction of the Labour Court- cum-Industrial Tribunal Dharamshala as harness case. It is also contended that if petitioner had been terminated in 2004 he would have definitely raised industrial dispute immediately and that2821 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 after ten years petitioner is stated to be agitating the matter which is bad on account of delay and laches. It is also contended that since the services of petitioner had not been terminated by the respondent, question of issuance of notice or wages in lieu thereof did not arise and at the same time, there was no necessity for charge-sheet or issuing any notice of petitioner after his termination. It is contended that petitioner was agriculturist and gainfully employed and was thus not entitled for back wages.

5. The petitioner filed rejoinder, reiterated his stand as maintained in the claim petition. Further asserted that provisions of Limitation Act did not eclipse the claim of petitioner in totality besides allegation of violation of principle of 'Last come First go' was specifically denied.

6. In order to prove his case, petitioner had examined himself as PW1 tendered/proved his affidavit Ex. PW1/A under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, Ex. PW1/B to PW1/L mandays charts of junior workers and closed evidence. On the other hand, repudiating the evidence led by the petitioner, respondent examined RW1 Shri Bal Krishan Kapil, the then Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Killar as RW1 tendered/proved mandays chart of petitioner Ex. RW1/B, mandays chart of other co-workers Ex. RW1/C, Ex. RW1/D1 to Ex. RW1/D21 copy of orders/awards and closed the evidence.

7. I have heard the ld. Authorized Representative of petitioner and ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent, gone through records of the case carefully relevant for disposed of this case.

8. From the contentions raised, following issues were framed on 30.09.2015 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated nil qua his termination of service during September, 2004 by respondent suffers from vice of delay and laches as alleged? If so, its effect? . .OPP.

2. Whether termination of the services of petitioner by the respondent during September, 2004 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged? . . OPP.

3. If issue no.1 or issue no.2 or both are proved in affirmative, to what service benefits the petitioner is entitled to? . .OPP.

4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged?

. .OPR.

Relief.

9. For the reasons detailed here under, my findings on the above issues are as follows:—

Issue No.1 : Yes

Issue No.2 : Yes

Issue No.3 : Discussed

Issue No.4 : No

Relief. : Petition is partly allowed awarding compensation Rs.1,50,000/- per operative part of award.

ISSUES NO.1, 2 AND 3

10. All these issues have been taken up together for discussion being interconnected which can be disposed of simultaneously without repetition of evidence.

11. Relationship of petitioner having been engaged as daily waged beldar by respondent on muster roll basis in the year 1991 who continuously worked till 2004 at HPPWD Sub Division Killar is not in dispute. Admittedly, petitioner was engaged without any written order or settlement of terms and conditions by the respondent. It is equally not in dispute that no written order was passed while terminating service of the petitioner as claim of respondent remains that it had not retrenched petitioner from service who had abandoned the job of his own and used to work intermittently as per his own wish and convenience. Admittedly, the reference of appropriate govt. does not relate to plea of fictional breaks but only with regard to petitioner's termination from service. In the backdrop of foregoing admitted facts on record, claim of petitioner requires to be adjudicated with a view to determine if petitioner is entitled for relief of reinstatement and back wages along-with seniority and past service benefits and compensation as claimed by him.

12. Stepping into witness box as PW1 has sworn in affidavit Ex. PW1/A reiterating and reaffirming his pleadings as stipulated in claim petition. In his affidavit he has claimed to have worked with the respondent/department for more than 160 days in Pangi Sub Division Chamba District and remained engaged from 1991 to September, 2004. He has also stated on oath that no notice under Section 25-F of the Act was given by the respondent before terminating his service and at the same time no compensation in lieu thereof notice period was paid to him and thus his termination was illegal and void entitling petitioner benefit of reinstatement of service with full back wages and all the other consequential service benefits. The petitioner has further alleged on oath that respondent/department after terminating his services in September, 2004 by oral order had engaged several co-workers who were junior to petitioner were retained in service. Not only this, the persons who were junior to petitioner are stated to have been regularized in service and thus respondent had not followed the mandate of Sections 25-G and 25- H of the Act which was obligatory on its part. The case of petitioner also remains that he had served respondent with due diligence and had spotless service record as respondent/department had never called any explanation or raised charge-sheet against him but even while retrenching petitioner from service, no notice was given. The petitioner has also explained reason for not approaching the authorities under Labour Act and thereafter before this Tribunal and petitioner had moved before the Labour Officer raising demand notice consequent upon which a failure report was submitted and as the Labour Commissioner did not make reference for industrial dispute raised by petitioner, the petitioner had moved before the Hon'ble High Court by filing CWP where direction was passed for making reference to the Labour Court due to which delay had occurred and same was satisfactorily explained.

13. In so far as plea of abandonment raised by respondent is concerned, the same merits rejection in view of the fact that respondent had failed to produce any record by which it could be established that whenever petitioner absented from his duty as also reflected in mandays chart Ex. RW1/B any notice or letter was ever issued. On this point respondent as RW1 has specifically admitted that whenever petitioner abandoned the job, no notice had been issued. RW1 specifically admitted that no departmental inquiry was initiated against petitioner even after September, 2004. No reason whatsoever has been assigned for such any action or omission on the part of respondent in not initiating any departmental proceedings or making correspondence calling upon the petitioner to join service. This prima facie belies the stand taken2823 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 by the respondent as abandonment has to be proved like any other fact in issue. The petitioner, on the other hand, as PW1 in cross-examination has specifically denied that he used to leave the job in between and attended the work intermittently rather he has claimed that intermittent breaks had been deliberately given to him by the respondent in the service record of petitioner so that petitioner did not complete 160 days of work as required for Pangi Tehsil area and also for applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. As such, in absence of any specific and reliable evidence led by respondent, it would be unsafe to hold that respondent had established plea of abandonment.

14. A bare glance on the mandays chart Ex. RW1/B would reveal that petitioner had worked for 57 days in the year 1991, 25 days in 1992, 86 days in 1994, 25 days in 1995, 104 days in 1996, 162 days in 1997, 151 days in 1998, 58 days in 1999, 133 days in 2000, 101.5 days in 2001, 120 days in 2002, 121 days in 2003 and 104 days in 2004 and thus a total of his service in 1991 to 2004 in 13 years he had worked for 1247.5 days in his entire service period. Be it noticed that except the years 1991 to 1996 and 1998 to 2004 petitioner had worked for more than 160 days and as there is no reference from the Labour Commissioner, Shimla on the point of artificial breaks, this court is to confine its findings only with regard to alleged illegal termination. It is evident from mandays chart Ex. RW1/B that in the year 2004 the petitioner had merely worked for 104 days and thus immediately in preceding 12 calendar months from the month of termination of petitioner had not rendered service of 160 days so as to meet requirement of law of having continuous service of one year and thus it was not at all required from respondent to have issued a notice envisaged under Section 25-F of the Act. As such, the respondent is held to have not violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

15. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has contended with vehemence that large number of workers who were junior to petitioner had been appointed from 01.8.1997 to 07.9.1999 and these workers have been retained in service and regularized. The grievance of petitioner remains that principle of 'Last come First go' was not followed as the juniors were retained and services of petitioner despite being senior was terminated without any valid reason. Ex. PW1/B, Ex. PW1/C, Ex. PW1/D are the year-wise mandays of daily waged workers who were junior to the petitioner and had joined in the year 1991 or thereafter whereas Ex. PW1/E to Ex. PW1/L are the mandays chart of other co- workers. All of these co-workers shown in Ex. PW1/C the year-wise mandays details of workers of Division HPPWD Killar were certainly junior to petitioner who were given sufficient work existing in those years more than 200 days in a year whereas the petitioner had been not given muster roll for the whole month. Ex. RW1/C also established that all the co-workers shown in this document have worked for more than 160 days in most of the years although they were junior to petitioner. Evidently, there is no iota of evidence of respondent establishing that petitioner was called upon to join for service at any time after September, 2004 even at the time when junior persons were reengaged. That being so the respondent had certainly violated the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act as the juniors workers mentioned in para no.3 of the affidavit were retained whereas petitioner was senior from these co-workers having joined service in 1991 was terminated and even thereafter respondent omitted to afford opportunity to petitioner for reemployment for work which also violates the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of Central Bank of India vs. S. Satyam, 1996 (5) SCC 419 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for the applicability of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act, there was no necessity of claimant/petitioner to have worked for 240 days as in case of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

16. Repudiating claim of petitioner, the respondent, on the other hand, has made futile attempt to justify engagement of junior workers and their retention in service on the basis of orders of Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Court of H.P. as 2824 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 reflected in Ex. RW1/D1 to Ex RW1/D21. These judgments/orders have been gone through which revealed that respondent had wrongly terminated the services of those claimant/petitioner and for said reasons they were directed to be reinstated. Thus, plea that persons were directed to be appointed in pursuance to awards/orders Ext. Rw1/D1 to Ex. RW1/D21 were primarily on the basis of court orders would not defeat the claim of the petitioner as status of these person being junior to petitioner does not get negatived. As such, even when petitioner is proved to have not worked for more than 160 days in preceding 8 years which entitled him for regularization of his service per government policy, yet respondent is not absolved from its accountability of provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act and as such it is held that respondent had violated the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. 17. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has contended that after petitioner's termination in September, 2004, he had remained unemployed and was not earning anything thereafter as such was entitled for full back wages. Repudiating the arguments of ld. Authorized Representative of petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. for the State has taken this court through cross-examination of the petitioner who has admitted that he had cultivatable land with him and also worked a private labourer. Thus, plea of having remained not gainfully employed gets belied admission of petitioner in cross-examination in which he had maintained that he had been earning from agricultural land as well as he has been working as daily wager privately. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. M. Nagangouda (2007) 10 SCC 765 in which Division Bench comprising of Justice A.R. Lakshmanan and Justice Altamas Kabir had held that 'term gainfully employment would also include self employment wherefrom income is generated. It was income either from employment in an establishment or from self employment merely differentiates the sources from which income is generated, the end use being the same'. Applying the ratio of judgment of 2007 (supra) to this case since the petitioner was earning from his agricultural and manual pursuits, the same were sufficient to maintain him and his family. It is thus held that petitioner was gainfully employed. Be it stated here that Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase's case has held that the Labour Court was not justified in holding that merely because the respondent was receiving agriculture income, he cannot be treated to be engaged in gainful employment. Since the petitioner had income from agriculture pursuits for his livelihood it cannot be stated that petitioner was not gainfully employed and thus would not be entitled full back wages. In view of the forgoing discussion, it is held that the relationship of workman and employer existed between petitioner and respondent and that petitioner was illegally retrenched without compliance of Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Act although remained gainfully employed after his retrenchment. Thus, applying the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court (2007 supra), it may not be erroneous to hold that petitioner was gainfully employed and thus would be not entitled for back wages for the period he was out of job on being terminated by the respondent.

18. Lastly, Ld. Dy. D.A. for State has contended with vehemence that there is inordinate and explained delay which disentitles petitioner relief claimed for by him. On the other hand, ld. Authorized Representative for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014 Lab IC 4266 (SC) and the relevant paras of the judgment are produced below for reference:

"12. Therefore, in our considered view, the observations made by this Court in the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board case (supra) upon which the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana has placed reliance cannot be applied to the fact situation of the case on hand, for the reason that the Labour Court has erroneously rejected the reference without judiciously considering all the relevant2825 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 factors of the case particularly the points of dispute referred to it and answered the 2nd issue regarding the reference being barred by limitation but not on the merits of the case. The said decision has no application to the fact situation and also for the reason the catena of decisions of this Court referred to supra, wherein this Court has categorically held that the provisions of Limitation Act under Article 137 has no application to make reference by the appropriate government to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of existing industrial dispute between workmen and the employer.

13. In the case on hand, no doubt there is a delay in raising the dispute by the appellant; the Labour Court nevertheless has the power to mould the relief accordingly. At the time of adjudication, if the dispute referred to the Labour Court is not adjudicated by it, it does not mean that the dispute ceases to exist. The appropriate government in exercise of its statutory power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act can refer the industrial dispute, between the parties, at any time, to either the jurisdictional Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal as interpreted by this Court in the Avon Services case referred to supra. Therefore, the State Government has rightly exercised its power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act and referred the points of dispute to the Labour Court as the same are in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Avon Services & Sapan Kumar Pandit cases referred to supra.

14. Further, the workman cannot be denied to seek relief only on the ground of

delay in raising the dispute as held in the case of S.M. Nilajkar & Ors. v. Telecom

District Manager, Karnataka[4] it was held by this Court as follows-

"17. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that on account of delay in raising the dispute by the appellants the High Court was justified in denying relief to the appellants. We cannot agree...... In Ratan Chandra Sammanta and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra)1993 AIR SCW 2214, it was held that a casual labourer retrenched by the employer deprives himself of remedy available in law by delay itself, lapse of time results in losing the remedy and the right as well. The delay would certainly be fatal if it has resulted in material evidence relevant to adjudication being lost and rendered not available. However, we do not think that the delay in the case at hand has been so culpable as to disentitle the appellants for any relief....." (Emphasis laid by the Court) In view of the legal principles laid down by this Court in the above judgment, the reference of the industrial dispute made in the case on hand by the State Government to the Labour Court to adjudicate the existing industrial dispute between the parties was made within a reasonable time, considering the circumstances in which the workman was placed, firstly, as there was a criminal case pending against him and secondly, the respondent had assured the workman that he would be reinstated after his acquittal from the criminal case. Moreover, it is reasonable to adjudicate the industrial dispute in spite of the delay in raising and referring the matter, since there is no mention of any loss or unavailability of material evidence due to the delay. Thus, we do not consider the delay in raising the industrial dispute and referring the same to the Labour Court for adjudication as gravely erroneous and it does not debar the workman from claiming rightful relief from his employer.

15. In the case of Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum- Processing Service Society Limited & Anr.[5] this Court has opined that relief cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay, stating that:—

"10. It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the act and that the relief under it2826 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labour court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay in shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/ termination or dismissal. The Court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full back wages....." (Emphasis laid by the Court)

16. Hence, we are of the opinion, having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case that there is no delay or latches on the part of the workman from the date of his acquittal in the criminal case. Thereafter, upon failure of the respondent in adhering to the assurance given to the workman that he would be reinstated after his acquittal from the criminal case, the workman approached the conciliation officer and the State Government to make a reference to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute with regard to the order of dismissal passed by the respondent. Keeping in mind the date of acquittal of the appellant and the date on which he approached the conciliation officer by raising the dispute, since the respondent had not adhered to its assurance, the State Government had rightly referred the dispute for its adjudication. Therefore it cannot be said that there was a delay on the part of the appellant in raising the dispute and getting it referred to the Labour Court by the State Government.

17. Further, the Labour Court on an erroneous assumption of law framed the additional issue regarding the limitation in raising the dispute and its reference by the State Government to the Labour Court. Thus, the Labour Court has ignored the legal principles laid down by this Court in the cases referred to supra. The award passed by the Labour Court was accepted erroneously by both the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court by dismissing the Civil Writ Petition & the Letters Patent Appeal without examining the case in its proper perspective, keeping in view the power of the State Government under Section 10(1)(c) and the object and intendment of the Act. Not adjudicating the existing industrial dispute on merits between the parties referred to it may lead to disruption of industrial peace and harmony, which is the foremost important aspect in Industrial Jurisprudence as the same would affect the public interest at large.

19. Ld. counsel representing respondent department has also contended with vehemence that claim petition is barred by limitation on account of delay and laches. It has been pointed that termination of petitioner in this case took place on 2004 and the industrial dispute was raised after several years of retrenchment. Repudiating the argument by ld. counsel, ld. AR for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment reported in 2007 LHLJ 903 Hon'ble High Court of H.P. (Bhatag Ram's case) in which it has been held that delay in raising dispute may be considered by court at the time of granting final relief however in various other judgments even longer delay has been condoned. In Divisional Manager, HPFC & another vs. Garibu Ram, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 1160, delay of more than 10 years was condoned besides Hon'ble High Court has held that principle of Limitation Act is not applicable to the industrial dispute. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajayab Singh vs. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing- cum-Processing Society Limited and Another, (1999) 6 SCC 82 in which it has been held that the principle of Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply to the proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act.

20. Relying upon the aforestated judgment, it has been contended that claim of petitioner cannot be defeated on the point of delay and laches. Repudiating arguments advanced by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub- Division Kota and Mohan Lal [2013 (139) FLR 125], the relevant para of the judgment are produced below for reference:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 25-F and 10- Limitation Act, 1963- Section 5- Industrial dispute- Termination of service-Finding of Lboaur Court that workman had completed 240 days in calander year and his termination was in violation o section 25-F of the I.D.Act- Wrokman worked from 1.11.1984 to 17.2.1986 in all 286 days during employment. His services terminated on 18.2.1986. Industrial dispute raised after 6 years of termination. Admitted delay of 6 years not kept in view by the Labour Court- Judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court flawed and unsustainable. Reinstatement of the workman not the appropriate relief. In lieu of reinstatement compensation of Rs.one lac directed to be paid to the workman by the appellant- employer within six weeks failing which interest @ workman 9% p.a. will be payable. [Paras 21 and 22] Limitation Act, 1963. Section 5- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Section 25-F- Termination of service- Industrial dispute raised after six years- Limitation Act not applicable to reference made under the I.D. Act-Delay in raising industrial disputes definitely an important circumstances which the Labour Court must keep in view before granting relief".

I have gone through the rival contention of the ld. Authorized Representative as well as ld. Dy. D.A. for State. Keeping in view the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments referred to above it is held that delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely an important circumstance and court has to keep in mind while exercising discretion. In para nos. 20 and 21 of judgment 2013 supra has referred to Gitam Singh's case reported in 2013 (136) FLR 893 (SC) titled as Assistant Engineer Rajasthan Development Corporation and another vs. Geetam Singh observing that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and the delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment (2013 supra) before that workman had worked for 286 days and had raised industrial dispute in 1992 whereas his services have been terminated in 1986 and he raised industrial dispute after six years. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that though compensation awarded by Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court was too low and liable to be enhanced by the Division Bench but surely reinstatement of the workman in the facts and circumstances is not the appropriate relief and thus Hon'ble Apex Court awarded a lump- sum of Rs.1 lakh along-with interest @ 9% per annum if the respondent failed to make payment of compensation within six weeks from the date of judgment. In the case in hand before this court factors which have weighed are that the petitioner in all remained engaged for about 13 years and actually worked for 1247.5 days as per mandays chart on record and that the services of petitioner were disengaged in September, 2004 who worked as non skilled worker and had raised industrial dispute by issuance of demand notice after about seven years i.e. demand notice was given dated nil. It is also pertinent to mention here that petitioner on the date of filing claim petition was ageing 50 years who has sufficient spell of life to work and earn his livelihood. Taking into consideration factors mentioned above in pursuance to judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court petitioner would not be entitled either for reinstatement or for back wages but compensation a lump-sum would be appropriate relief in view of judgment 2013 (139) FLR 25 (SC). The judgments relied upon by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner on the 2828 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 matter of delay and laches is more or less settled law that claim of the petitioner could not be solely declined on the ground of delay and laches. Similarly, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in 2014 titled as Raghubir Singh's case also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner as in this judgment also the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the mandate as given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in previous judgment in the year 2013 i.e. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division Kota and Mohan Lal's case. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment titled as Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh v. Akhilesh Kumar Khare & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 3473.

21. In view of foregoing discussion, a lump-sum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) would be a appropriate relief to which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above. It is further made clear that amount of compensation shall be paid within four months from the date of Award failing which the petitioner would be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from date of Award and its realization. Issues no. 1, 2 and 3 are answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.4

22. On the plea of non-maintainability of the claim petition under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has failed to allege in reply in what manner petition is not maintainable. Thus, vague plea merits rejection outright. Otherwise also, from pleadings and evidence on record, no inference of claim petition being not maintainable could be raised against claimant/petitioner. This issue is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondent.

RELIEF

23. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, the respondent is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) to the petitioner in lieu of the reinstatement in services as well as the other consequential service benefits. Amount of compensation so awarded shall be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within four months from today failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay the interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of award till the date of its realization. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

24. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

25. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette.

26. File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.

day of May, 2016.

Announced in the open Court today this 18th

(K. K. Sharma)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA (HP)

(CAMP AT CHAMBA)

Ref No. : 240/2015

Date of Institution : 10.06.2015

Date of Decision : 18.05.2016

Smt. Puran Dei w/o Shri Ram Lal, r/o Village Monjhi, P.O. Sechu, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. . . Petitioner.

Versus

Executive Engineer, Killar Division, H.P.P.W.D./I.P.H. Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. . .Respondent.

Reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. I.S. Jaryal, AR

For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A.

AWARD

The reference given below has been received from the appropriate Government for adjudication:

"Whether the industrial dispute raised by the worker Smt. Puran Dei W/O Shri Ram Lal, R/O Village Monjhi, P.O. Sechu, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. before the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, I.&P.H./H.P.P.W.D. Division, Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. vide demand notice dated 27.08.2012 regarding her alleged illegal termination of service during October, 2001 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Smt. Puran Dei W/O Shri Ram Lal, R/O Village Monjhi, P.O. Sechu, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, I.&P.H./H.P.P.W.D. Division, Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. during October, 2001 without complying 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 aggrieved workman is entitled to from the above employer?"

2. On receipt of reference from appropriate government, notices were issued to the parties in pursuance to which claimant/petitioner has filed statement of claim.

3. Brief facts leading to institution of the present claim petition by the petitioner above named reveal that she had been initially engaged as daily waged beldar on muster roll basis in the year 1995 who continuously worked till October, 2001 in IPH Sub Division, Killar. Averments made in the petition further revealed that petitioner had worked for 160 days in each calendar year as prescribed for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil District Chamba and became eligible for continuous service envisaged under statutory provisions of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity). Averments made 2830 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 in the petition revealed that the services of petitioner had interrupted by way of intermittent/artificial breaks given by the respondent/department deliberately and as such breaks are required to be counted as continuous services for the purposes of calculation of 160 days so as for the applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. The grievance of petitioner remains that respondent/department had terminated/disengaged petitioner from daily wage service in the end of October, 2001 by an oral order without any reason whereas several other co-workers who were junior to petitioner had been retained on muster roll and thus the action of respondent/department was stated to be unjustified and malafide. It is alleged that seniority list of daily wage workers working under the respondent had not been circulated till termination/retrenchment of the petitioner and while retrenching the services of petitioner, even principle of 'Last come First go' had not been followed by the department/respondent. The petitioner has named 27 persons who were junior to petitioner and joined service from 1 s t August, 1997 to 1st September, 2007. In the end of month of October, 2001 when the services of petitioner were terminated by way of oral order, she was not served with one month notice of retrenchment and at the same time one month's wages in lieu of notice period had also not been paid to her and for said reason termination of the services of petitioner was prima facie illegal and unwarranted. The claimant/petitioner claimed that she had spotless service record who never been charge-sheeted for any act of indiscipline or negligence or her conduct and even at the time of verbal termination, no charge-sheet had been served upon her and the at the same time, no opportunity of hearing had been afforded to her. The petitioner also alleges that she has remained unemployed ever since her illegal termination from month of October, 2001 till the date of institution of present claim petition who had been nowhere gainfully employed and was thus entitled for full back wages. Accordingly alleging respondent to have committed violation of statutory provision of Section 25-F, Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for setting aside oral order of termination/retrenchment by the respondent in the month of October, 2001. She further prayed for reinstatement in service w.e.f. month of October, 2001 along-with back wages, seniority including continuity in service as petitioner has remained unemployed since the date of her illegal termination. The petitioner has also prayed that period of intermittent/fictional breaks given time and again during entire service of petitioner between 1995 to October, 2001 be counted 160 days continuous service and regularization of the service of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2003 having completed 8 years of service and per the policy of HP Govt. in pursuance to judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and to any other relief petitioner is entitled.

4. The respondent contested claim petition, filed reply inter-alia taken preliminary objections of maintainability, claim petition being bad on account of delay and laches. On merits denied that petitioner had worked for more than 160 days in each calendar year rather clarified by stating that petitioner was engaged as daily waged beldar in 1995 who remained engaged till 2001 but had worked intermittently as petitioner used to come and attend the work at her own sweet will and convenience. Relying upon the mandays chart, it has been categorically pleaded by the respondent that petitioner had not completed 160 days in each calendar year as required for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil. Allegations of fictional breaks given by respondent to the petitioner have been denied. In so far as engagement of persons junior to petitioner mentioned at serial nos. 1 to 25 in para no. 4 of the claim petition were appointed as per order of Labour Court and at serial nos. 26 & 27 as harness case. On the plea of termination of service of petitioner, respondent specifically alleges that petitioner had left the job at her own will therefore serving of notice or pay in lieu thereof was not required. Reiterating its stand respondent has maintained that petitioner had left the work of her own sweet will and the persons mentioned in para no.4 are stated to have engaged as per direction of the Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal Dharamshala as harness case. It is also contended that if petitioner had been terminated in 2001 she would have definitely raised industrial dispute immediately and that2831 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 after seven years petitioner is stated to be agitating the matter which is bad on account of delay and laches. It is also contended that since the services of petitioner had not been terminated by the respondent, question of issuance of notice or wages in lieu thereof did not arise and at the same time, there was no necessity for charge-sheet or issuing any notice of petitioner after her termination. It is contended that petitioner was agriculturist and gainfully employed and was thus not entitled for back wages.

5. The petitioner filed rejoinder, reiterated her stand as maintained in the claim petition. Further asserted that provisions of Limitation Act did not eclipse the claim of petitioner in totality besides allegation of violation of principle of 'Last come First go' was specifically denied.

6. In order to prove her case, petitioner had examined herself as PW1 tendered/proved her affidavit Ex. PW1/A under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, Ex. PW1/B to PW1/L mandays charts of junior workers and closed evidence. On the other hand, repudiating the evidence led by the petitioner, respondent examined RW1 Shri Bal Krishan Kapil, the then Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Killar as RW1 tendered/proved mandays chart of petitioner Ex. RW1/B, mandays chart of other co-workers Ex. RW1/C, Ex. RW1/D1 to Ex. RW1/D21 copy of orders/awards and closed the evidence.

7. I have heard the ld. Authorized Representative of petitioner and ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent, gone through records of the case carefully relevant for disposed of this case.

8. From the contentions raised, following issues were framed on 27.11.2015 for determination which are as under:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated 27.08.2012 qua her termination of service during October, 2001 by respondent suffers from the vice of delay and laches as alleged? If so, its effect? . .OPP.

2. Whether termination of the services of petitioner by the respondent during October, 2001 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged? . . OPP.

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

4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged?

. .OPR.

Relief.

9. For the reasons detailed here under, my findings on the above issues are as follows:—

Issue No.1 : Yes

Issue No.2 : Yes

Issue No.3 : Discussed

Issue No.4 : No

Relief. : Petition is partly allowed awarding compensation Rs.1,00,000/- per operative part of award.

ISSUES NO.1, 2 AND 3

10. All these issues have been taken up together for discussion being interconnected which can be disposed of simultaneously without repetition of evidence.

11. Relationship of petitioner having been engaged as daily waged beldar by respondent on muster roll basis in the month of 1995 who continuously worked till 2001 at IPH/HPPWD Sub Division Killar is not in dispute. Admittedly, petitioner was engaged without any written order or settlement of terms and conditions by the respondent. It is equally not in dispute that no written order was passed while terminating service of the petitioner as claim of respondent remains that it had not retrenched petitioner from service who had abandoned the job of her own and used to work intermittently as per her own wish and convenience. Admittedly, the reference of appropriate govt. does not relate to plea of fictional breaks but only with regard to petitioner's termination from service. In the backdrop of foregoing admitted facts on record, claim of petitioner requires to be adjudicated with a view to determine if petitioner is entitled for relief of reinstatement and back wages along-with seniority and past service benefits and compensation as claimed by him.

12. Stepping into witness box as PW1 has sworn in affidavit Ex. PW1/A reiterating and reaffirming her pleadings as stipulated in claim petition. In her affidavit she has claimed to have worked with the respondent/department for more than 160 days in Pangi Sub Division Chamba District and remained engaged from 1995 to October, 2001. She has also stated on oath that no notice under Section 25- F of the Act was given by the respondent before terminating her service and at the same time no compensation in lieu thereof notice period was paid to her and thus her termination was illegal and void entitling petitioner benefit of reinstatement of service with full back wages and all the other consequential service benefits. The petitioner has further alleged on oath that respondent/department after terminating her services in October, 2001 by oral order had engaged several co-workers who were junior to petitioner were retained in service. Not only this, the persons who were junior to petitioner are stated to have been regularized in service and thus respondent had not followed the mandate of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act which was obligatory on its part. The case of petitioner also remains that she had served respondent with due diligence and had spotless service record as respondent/department had never called any explanation or raised charge-sheet against her but even while retrenching petitioner from service, no notice was given. The petitioner has also explained reason for not approaching the authorities under Labour Act and thereafter before this Tribunal, as there existed no road between Chamba town to Pangi Tehsil till 2012 and petitioner had moved before the Labour Officer raising demand notice consequent upon which a failure report was submitted and as the Labour Commissioner did not make reference for industrial dispute raised by petitioner, the petitioner had moved before the Hon'ble High Court by filing CWP where direction was passed for making reference to the Labour Court due to which delay had occurred and same was satisfactorily explained.

13. In so far as plea of abandonment raised by respondent is concerned, the same merits rejection in view of the fact that respondent had failed to produce any record by which it could be established that whenever petitioner absented from her duty as also reflected in mandays chart Ex. RW1/B any notice or letter was ever issued. On this point respondent as RW1 has specifically admitted that whenever petitioner abandoned the job, no notice had been issued. RW1 specifically admitted that no departmental inquiry was initiated against petitioner even after October, 2001. No reason whatsoever has been assigned for such any action or omission on the part of respondent in not initiating any departmental proceedings or making2833 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 correspondence calling upon the petitioner to join service. This prima facie belies the stand taken by the respondent as abandonment has to be proved like any other fact in issue. The petitioner, on the other hand, as PW1 in cross-examination has specifically denied that she used to leave the job in between and attended the work intermittently rather she has claimed that intermit breaks had been deliberately given to her by the respondent in the service record of petitioner so that petitioner did not complete 160 days of work as required for Pangi Tehsil area and also for applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. As such, in absence of any specific and reliable evidence led by respondent, it would be unsafe to hold that respondent had established plea of abandonment.

14. A bare glance on the mandays chart Ex. RW1/B would reveal that petitioner had worked for 14.5 days in the year 1995, 164 days in 1996, 164 days in 1997, 158.5 days in 1998, 137 days in 1999, 99 days in 2000 and 89 days in 2001 and thus a total of her service in 1995 to 2001 in 7 years she had worked for 826 days in her entire service period. Be it noticed that except the years 1995 and 1998 to 2001 she had worked for more than 160 days and as there is no reference from the Labour Commissioner, Shimla on the point of artificial breaks, this court is to confine its findings only with regard to alleged illegal termination. It is evident from mandays chart Ex. RW1/B that in the year 2001 the petitioner had merely worked for 89 days and thus immediately in preceding 12 calendar months from the month of termination of petitioner had not rendered service of 160 days so as to meet requirement of law of having continuous service of one year and thus it was not at all required from respondent to have issued a notice envisaged under Section 25-F of the Act. As such, the respondent is held to have not violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

15. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has contended with vehemence that large number of workers who were junior to petitioner had been appointed from 01.8.1997 to 07.9.1999 and these workers have been retained in service and regularized. The grievance of petitioner remains that principle of 'Last come First go' was not followed as the juniors were retained and services of petitioner despite being senior was terminated without any valid reason. Ex. PW1/B, Ex. PW1/C, Ex. PW1/D are the year-wise mandays of daily waged workers who were junior to the petitioner and had joined in the year 2000 or thereafter whereas Ex. PW1/E to Ex. PW1/L are the mandays chart of other co- workers. All of these co-workers shown in Ex. PW1/C the year-wise mandays details of workers of Division HPPWD Killar were certainly junior to petitioner who were given sufficient work existing in those years more than 200 days in a year whereas the petitioner had been not given muster roll for the whole month. Ex. RW1/C also established that all the co-workers shown in this document have worked for more than 160 days in most of the years although they were junior to petitioner. Evidently, there is no iota of evidence of respondent establishing that petitioner was called upon to join for service at any time after October, 2001 even at the time when junior persons were reengaged. That being so the respondent had certainly violated the provisions of Section 25- G of the Act as the juniors workers mentioned in para no.3 of the affidavit were retained whereas petitioner was senior from these co-workers having joined service in 1995 was terminated and even thereafter respondent omitted to afford opportunity to petitioner for reemployment for work which also violates the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of Central Bank of India vs. S. Satyam, 1996 (5) SCC 419 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for the applicability of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act, there was no necessity of claimant/petitioner to have worked for 240 days as in case of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

16. Repudiating claim of petitioner, the respondent, on the other hand, has made futile attempt to justify engagement of junior workers and their retention in service on the basis of orders of Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Court of H.P. as 2834 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 reflected in Ex. RW1/D1 to Ex RW1/D21. These judgments/orders have been gone through which revealed that respondent had wrongly terminated the services of those claimant/petitioner and for said reasons they were directed to be reinstated. Thus, plea that persons were directed to be appointed in pursuance to awards/orders Ext. Rw1/D1 to Ex. RW1/D21 were primarily on the basis of court orders would not defeat the claim of the petitioner as status of these person being junior to petitioner does not get negatived. As such, even when petitioner is proved to have not worked for more than 160 days in preceding 8 years which entitled her for regularization of her service per government policy, yet respondent is not absolved from its accountability of provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act and as such it is held that respondent had violated the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. 17. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has contended that after petitioner's termination in October, 2001, she had remained unemployed and was not earning anything thereafter as such was entitled for full back wages. Repudiating the arguments of ld. Authorized Representative of petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. for the State has taken this court through cross-examination of the petitioner who has admitted that she had cultivatable land with her and also worked a private labourer. Thus, plea of having remained not gainfully employed gets belied admission of petitioner in cross-examination in which she had maintained that she had been earning from agricultural land as well as she has been working as daily wager privately. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. M. Nagangouda (2007) 10 SCC 765 in which Division Bench comprising of Justice A.R. Lakshmanan and Justice Altamas Kabir had held that 'term gainfully employment would also include self employment wherefrom income is generated. It was income either from employment in an establishment or from self employment merely differentiates the sources from which income is generated, the end use being the same'. Applying the ratio of judgment of 2007 (supra) to this case since the petitioner was earning from her agricultural and manual pursuits, the same were sufficient to maintain her and her family. It is thus held that petitioner was gainfully employed. Be it stated here that Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase's case has held that the Labour Court was not justified in holding that merely because the respondent was receiving agriculture income, she cannot be treated to be engaged in gainful employment. Since the petitioner had income from agriculture pursuits for her livelihood it cannot be stated that petitioner was not gainfully employed and thus would not be entitled full back wages. In view of the forgoing discussion, it is held that the relationship of workman and employer existed between petitioner and respondent and that petitioner was illegally retrenched without compliance of Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Act although remained gainfully employed after her retrenchment. Thus, applying the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court (2007 supra), it may not be erroneous to hold that petitioner was gainfully employed and thus would be not entitled for back wages for the period she was out of job on being terminated by the respondent.

18. Lastly, Ld. Dy. D.A. for State has contended with vehemence that there is inordinate and explained delay which disentitles petitioner relief claimed for by him. On the other hand, ld. Authorized Representative for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014 Lab IC 4266 (SC) and the relevant paras of the judgment are produced below for reference:

"12. Therefore, in our considered view, the observations made by this Court in the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board case (supra) upon which the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana has placed reliance cannot be applied to the fact situation of the case on hand, for the reason that the Labour Court has erroneously rejected the reference without judiciously considering all the relevant2835 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 factors of the case particularly the points of dispute referred to it and answered the 2nd issue regarding the reference being barred by limitation but not on the merits of the case. The said decision has no application to the fact situation and also for the reason the catena of decisions of this Court referred to supra, wherein this Court has categorically held that the provisions of Limitation Act under Article 137 has no application to make reference by the appropriate government to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of existing industrial dispute between workmen and the employer.

13. In the case on hand, no doubt there is a delay in raising the dispute by the appellant; the Labour Court nevertheless has the power to mould the relief accordingly. At the time of adjudication, if the dispute referred to the Labour Court is not adjudicated by it, it does not mean that the dispute ceases to exist. The appropriate government in exercise of its statutory power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act can refer the industrial dispute, between the parties, at any time, to either the jurisdictional Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal as interpreted by this Court in the Avon Services case referred to supra. Therefore, the State Government has rightly exercised its power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act and referred the points of dispute to the Labour Court as the same are in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Avon Services & Sapan Kumar Pandit cases referred to supra.

14. Further, the workman cannot be denied to seek relief only on the ground of

delay in raising the dispute as held in the case of S.M. Nilajkar & Ors. v. Telecom

District Manager, Karnataka[4] it was held by this Court as follows-

"17. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that on account of delay in raising the dispute by the appellants the High Court was justified in denying relief to the appellants. We cannot agree...... In Ratan Chandra Sammanta and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra)1993 AIR SCW 2214, it was held that a casual labourer retrenched by the employer deprives herself of remedy available in law by delay itself, lapse of time results in losing the remedy and the right as well. The delay would certainly be fatal if it has resulted in material evidence relevant to adjudication being lost and rendered not available. However, we do not think that the delay in the case at hand has been so culpable as to disentitle the appellants for any relief....." (Emphasis laid by the Court) In view of the legal principles laid down by this Court in the above judgment, the reference of the industrial dispute made in the case on hand by the State Government to the Labour Court to adjudicate the existing industrial dispute between the parties was made within a reasonable time, considering the circumstances in which the workman was placed, firstly, as there was a criminal case pending against her and secondly, the respondent had assured the workman that she would be reinstated after her acquittal from the criminal case. Moreover, it is reasonable to adjudicate the industrial dispute in spite of the delay in raising and referring the matter, since there is no mention of any loss or unavailability of material evidence due to the delay. Thus, we do not consider the delay in raising the industrial dispute and referring the same to the Labour Court for adjudication as gravely erroneous and it does not debar the workman from claiming rightful relief from her employer.

15. In the case of Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum- Processing Service Society Limited & Anr.[5] this Court has opined that relief cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay, stating that:-

"10. It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the act and that the relief under it2836 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labour court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay in shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date she raised the demand regarding her illegal retrenchment/ termination or dismissal. The Court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full back wages....." (Emphasis laid by the Court)

16. Hence, we are of the opinion, having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case that there is no delay or latches on the part of the workman from the date of her acquittal in the criminal case. Thereafter, upon failure of the respondent in adhering to the assurance given to the workman that she would be reinstated after her acquittal from the criminal case, the workman approached the conciliation officer and the State Government to make a reference to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute with regard to the order of dismissal passed by the respondent. Keeping in mind the date of acquittal of the appellant and the date on which she approached the conciliation officer by raising the dispute, since the respondent had not adhered to its assurance, the State Government had rightly referred the dispute for its adjudication. Therefore it cannot be said that there was a delay on the part of the appellant in raising the dispute and getting it referred to the Labour Court by the State Government.

17. Further, the Labour Court on an erroneous assumption of law framed the additional issue regarding the limitation in raising the dispute and its reference by the State Government to the Labour Court. Thus, the Labour Court has ignored the legal principles laid down by this Court in the cases referred to supra. The award passed by the Labour Court was accepted erroneously by both the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court by dismissing the Civil Writ Petition & the Letters Patent Appeal without examining the case in its proper perspective, keeping in view the power of the State Government under Section 10(1)(c) and the object and intendment of the Act. Not adjudicating the existing industrial dispute on merits between the parties referred to it may lead to disruption of industrial peace and harmony, which is the foremost important aspect in Industrial Jurisprudence as the same would affect the public interest at large.

19. Ld. counsel representing respondent department has also contended with vehemence that claim petition is barred by limitation on account of delay and laches. It has been pointed that termination of petitioner in this case took place on 2001 and the industrial dispute was raised after several years of retrenchment. Repudiating the argument by ld. counsel, ld. AR for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment reported in 2007 LHLJ 903 Hon'ble High Court of H.P. (Bhatag Ram's case) in which it has been held that delay in raising dispute may be considered by court at the time of granting final relief however in various other judgments even longer delay has been condoned. In Divisional Manager, HPFC & another vs. Garibu Ram, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 1160, delay of more than 10 years was condoned besides Hon'ble High Court has held that principle of Limitation Act is not applicable to the industrial dispute. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajayab Singh vs. Sirhind Co- operative Marketing- cum-Processing Society Limited and Another, (1999) 6 SCC 82 in which it has been held that the principle of Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply to the proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act.

20. Relying upon the aforestated judgment, it has been contended that claim of petitioner cannot be defeated on the point of delay and laches. Repudiating arguments advanced by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub- Division Kota and Mohan Lal [2013 (139) FLR 125], the relevant para of the judgment are produced below for reference:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 25-F and 10- Limitation Act, 1963- Section 5- Industrial dispute- Termination of service-Finding of Lboaur Court that workman had completed 240 days in calander year and her termination was in violation o section 25-F of the I.D.Act- Wrokman worked from 1.11.1984 to 17.2.1986 in all 286 days during employment. her services terminated on 18.2.1986. Industrial dispute raised after 6 years of termination. Admitted delay of 6 years not kept in view by the Labour Court- Judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court flawed and unsustainable. Reinstatement of the workman not the appropriate relief. In lieu of reinstatement compensation of Rs.one lac directed to be paid to the workman by the appellant- employer within six weeks failing which interest @ workman 9% p.a. will be payable. [Paras 21 and 22] Limitation Act, 1963. Section 5-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Section 25-F- Termination of service- Industrial dispute raised after six years- Limitation Act not applicable to reference made under the I.D. Act-Delay in raising industrial disputes definitely an important circumstances which the Labour Court must keep in view before granting relief".

I have gone through the rival contention of the ld. Authorized Representative as well as ld. Dy. D.A. for State. Keeping in view the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments referred to above it is held that delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely an important circumstance and court has to keep in mind while exercising discretion. In para nos. 20 and 21 of judgment 2013 supra has referred to Gitam Singh's case reported in 2013 (136) FLR 893 (SC) titled as Assistant Engineer Rajasthan Development Corporation and another vs. Geetam Singh observing that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and the delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment (2013 supra) before that workman had worked for 286 days and had raised industrial dispute in 1992 whereas his services have been terminated in 1986 and he raised industrial dispute after six years. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that though compensation awarded by Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court was too low and liable to be enhanced by the Division Bench but surely reinstatement of the workman in the facts and circumstances is not the appropriate relief and thus Hon'ble Apex Court awarded a lump- sum of Rs.1 lakh along-with interest @ 9% per annum if the respondent failed to make payment of compensation within six weeks from the date of judgment. In the case in hand before this court factors which have weighed are that the petitioner in all remained engaged for about 7 years and actually worked for 826 days as per mandays chart on record and that the services of petitioner were disengaged in October, 2001 who worked as non skilled worker and had raised industrial dispute by issuance of demand notice after about eleven years i.e. demand notice was given on 27.8.2012. It is also pertinent to mention here that petitioner on the date of filing claim petition was ageing 51 years who has sufficient spell of life to work and earn her livelihood. Taking into consideration factors mentioned above in pursuance to judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court petitioner would not be entitled either for reinstatement or for back wages but compensation a lump-sum would be appropriate relief in view of judgment 2013 (139) FLR 25 (SC). The judgments relied upon by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner on the 2838 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 matter of delay and laches is more or less settled law that claim of the petitioner could not be solely declined on the ground of delay and laches. Similarly, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in 2014 titled as Raghubir Singh's case also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner as in this judgment also the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the mandate as given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in previous judgment in the year 2013 i.e. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division Kota and Mohan Lal's case. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment titled as Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh v. Akhilesh Kumar Khare & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 3473.

21. In view of foregoing discussion, a lump-sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) would be a appropriate relief to which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above. It is further made clear that amount of compensation shall be paid within four months from the date of Award failing which the petitioner would be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from date of Award and its realization. Issues no. 1,2 and 3 are answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.4

22. On the plea of non-maintainability of the claim petition under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has failed to allege in reply in what manner petition is not maintainable. Thus, vague plea merits rejection outright. Otherwise also, from pleadings and evidence on record, no inference of claim petition being not maintainable could be raised against claimant/petitioner. This issue is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondent.

RELIEF

23. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, the respondent is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the petitioner in lieu of the reinstatement in services as well as the other consequential service benefits. Amount of compensation so awarded shall be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within four months from today failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay the interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of award till the date of its realization. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

24. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

25. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette.

26. File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.

day of May, 2016.

Announced in the open Court today this 18th

(K.K. Sharma)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA (HP)

(CAMP AT CHAMBA)

Ref. No. : 154/2015

Date of Institution : 04.04.2015

Date of Decision : 18.05.2016

Shri Ram Singh s/o Shri Dharam Chand, r/o Village Chatarwas, P.O. Kothi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. . . Petitioner.

Versus

Executive Engineer, Killar Division, H.P.P.W.D. Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. . .Respondent.

Reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. I.S. Jaryal, AR

For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A.

AWARD

The reference given below has been received from the appropriate Government for adjudication:

"Whether the industrial dispute raised by the worker Shri Ram Singh S/O Shri Dharam Chand, R/O Village Chatarwas, P.O. Kothi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. before the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, H.P.P.W.D. Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. vide demand notice dated 26.01.2011 regarding his alleged illegal termination of service w.e.f. October, 2001 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Shri Ram Singh S/O Shri Dharam Chand, R/O Village Chatarwas, P.O. Kothi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, Killar Division H.P.P.W.D. Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. w.e.f. October, 2001 without complying 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 aggrieved workman is entitled to from the above employer?"

2. On receipt of reference from appropriate government, notices were issued to the parties in pursuance to which claimant/petitioner has filed statement of claim.

3. Brief facts leading to institution of the present claim petition by the petitioner above named reveal that he had been initially engaged as daily waged beldar on muster roll basis in the month of May, 1982 who continuously worked till October, 2001 in HPPWD Sub Division Sach. Averments made in the petition further revealed that petitioner had worked for 160 days in each calendar year as prescribed for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil District Chamba and became eligible for continuous service envisaged under statutory provisions of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity).

2840 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 Averments made in the petition revealed that the services of petitioner had interrupted by way of intermittent/artificial breaks given by the respondent/department deliberately and as such breaks are required to be counted as continuous services for the purposes of calculation of 160 days so as for the applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. The grievance of petitioner remains that respondent/department had terminated/disengaged petitioner from daily wage service in the end of October, 2001 by an oral order without any reason whereas several other co-workers who were junior to petitioner had been retained on muster roll and thus the action of respondent/department was stated to be unjustified and malafide. It is alleged that seniority list of daily wage workers working under the respondent had not been circulated till termination/retrenchment of the petitioner and while retrenching the services of petitioner, even principle of 'Last come First go' had not been followed by the department/respondent. The petitioner has named 27 persons who were junior to petitioner and joined service from 1st August, 1997 to 1st September, 2007. In the end of month of October, 2001 when the services of petitioner were terminated by way of oral order, he was not served with one month notice of retrenchment and at the same time one month's wages in lieu of notice period had also not been paid to him and for said reason termination of the services of petitioner was prima facie illegal and unwarranted. The claimant/petitioner claimed that he had spotless service record who never been charge-sheeted for any act of indiscipline or negligence or his conduct and even at the time of verbal termination, no charge-sheet had been served upon him and the at the same time, no opportunity of hearing had been afforded to him. The petitioner also alleges that he has remained unemployed ever since his illegal termination from month of October, 2001 till the date of institution of present claim petition who had been nowhere gainfully employed and was thus entitled for full back wages. Accordingly alleging respondent to have committed violation of statutory provision of Section 25-F, Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for setting aside oral order of termination/retrenchment by the respondent in the month of October, 2001. He further prayed for reinstatement in service w.e.f. month of October, 2001 along-with back wages, seniority including continuity in service as petitioner has remained unemployed since the date of his illegal termination. The petitioner has also prayed that period of intermittent/fictional breaks given time and again during entire service of petitioner between May, 1982 to October, 2001 be counted 160 days continuous service and regularization of the service of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1994 having completed 10 years of service and per the policy of HP Govt. in pursuance to judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Mool Raj Upadhayay vs. State of H.P. and to any other relief petitioner is entitled.

4. The respondent contested claim petition, filed reply inter-alia taken preliminary objections of maintainability, claim petition being bad on account of delay and laches. On merits denied that petitioner had worked for more than 160 days in each calendar year rather clarified by stating that petitioner was engaged as daily waged beldar in 1998 who remained engaged till 2001 but had worked intermittently as petitioner used to come and attend the work at his own sweet will and convenience. Relying upon the mandays chart, it has been categorically pleaded by the respondent that petitioner had not completed 160 days in each calendar year as required for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil. Allegations of fictional breaks given by respondent to the petitioner have been denied. In so far as engagement of persons junior to petitioner mentioned at serial nos. 1 to 24 & 26 in para no. 4 of the claim petition were appointed as per order of Labour Court and at serial no. 27 as harness case. On the plea of termination of service of petitioner, respondent specifically alleges that petitioner had left the job at his own will therefore serving of notice or pay in lieu thereof was not required. Reiterating its stand respondent has maintained that petitioner had left the work of his own sweet will and the persons mentioned in para no.7 are stated to have engaged as per direction of the Labour Court- cum-Industrial Tribunal Dharamshala as harness case. It is also contended that if petitioner had been terminated in 2001 he would have definitely raised industrial dispute immediately and that2841 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 after ten years petitioner is stated to be agitating the matter which is bad on account of delay and laches. It is also contended that since the services of petitioner had not been terminated by the respondent, question of issuance of notice or wages in lieu thereof did not arise and at the same time, there was no necessity for charge-sheet or issuing any notice of petitioner after his termination. It is contended that petitioner was agriculturist and gainfully employed and was thus not entitled for back wages.

5. The petitioner filed rejoinder, reiterated his stand as maintained in the claim petition. Further asserted that provisions of Limitation Act did not eclipse the claim of petitioner in totality besides allegation of violation of principle of 'Last come First go' was specifically denied.

6. In order to prove his case, petitioner had examined himself as PW1 tendered/proved his affidavit Ex. PW1/A under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, Ex. PW1/B to PW1/L mandays charts of junior workers and closed evidence. On the other hand, repudiating the evidence led by the petitioner, respondent examined RW1 Shri Bal Krishan Kapil, the then Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Killar as RW1 tendered/proved mandays chart of petitioner Ex. RW1/B, mandays chart of other co-workers Ex. RW1/C, Ex. RW1/D1 to Ex. RW1/D21 copy of orders/awards and closed the evidence.

7. I have heard the ld. Authorized Representative of petitioner and ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent, gone through records of the case carefully relevant for disposed of this case.

8. From the contentions raised, following issues were framed on 12.08.2015 for determination:

1. Whether termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent during the year October, 2001 is/was improper and unjustified as alleged? . .OPP.

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

3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? . .OPR.

4. Whether the claim petition is bad on account of delay and laches on part of the petitioner as alleged. If so, its effect? . .OPR.

Relief.

9. For the reasons detailed here under, my findings on the above issues are as follows:—

Issue No.1 : Yes

Issue No.2 : Discussed

Issue No.3 : No

Issue No.4 : Yes

Relief. : Petition is partly allowed awarding compensation Rs.80,000/- per operative part of award.

ISSUES NO.1, 2 AND 4

10. All these issues have been taken up together for discussion being interconnected which can be disposed of simultaneously without repetition of evidence.

11. Relationship of petitioner having been engaged as daily waged beldar by respondent on muster roll basis in the year 1998 who continuously worked till 2001 at HPPWD Sub Division Sach is not in dispute. Admittedly, petitioner was engaged without any written order or settlement of terms and conditions by the respondent. It is equally not in dispute that no written order was passed while terminating service of the petitioner as claim of respondent remains that it had not retrenched petitioner from service who had abandoned the job of his own and used to work intermittently as per his own wish and convenience. Admittedly, the reference of appropriate govt. does not relate to plea of fictional breaks but only with regard to petitioner's termination from service. In the backdrop of foregoing admitted facts on record, claim of petitioner requires to be adjudicated with a view to determine if petitioner is entitled for relief of reinstatement and back wages along-with seniority and past service benefits and compensation as claimed by him.

12. Stepping into witness box as PW1 has sworn in affidavit Ex. PW1/A reiterating and reaffirming his pleadings as stipulated in claim petition. In his affidavit he has claimed to have worked with the respondent/department for more than 160 days in Pangi Sub Division Chamba District and remained engaged from 1998 to October, 2001. He has also stated on oath that no notice under Section 25- F of the Act was given by the respondent before terminating his service and at the same time no compensation in lieu thereof notice period was paid to him and thus his termination was illegal and void entitling petitioner benefit of reinstatement of service with full back wages and all the other consequential service benefits. The petitioner has further alleged on oath that respondent/department after terminating his services in October, 2001 by oral order had engaged several co-workers who were junior to petitioner were retained in service. Not only this, the persons who were junior to petitioner are stated to have been regularized in service and thus respondent had not followed the mandate of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act which was obligatory on its part. The case of petitioner also remains that he had served respondent with due diligence and had spotless service record as respondent/department had never called any explanation or raised charge-sheet against him but even while retrenching petitioner from service, no notice was given. The petitioner has also explained reason for not approaching the authorities under Labour Act and thereafter before this Tribunal and petitioner had moved before the Labour Officer raising demand notice consequent upon which a failure report was submitted and as the Labour Commissioner did not make reference for industrial dispute raised by petitioner, the petitioner had moved before the Hon'ble High Court by filing CWP where direction was passed for making reference to the Labour Court due to which delay had occurred and same was satisfactorily explained.

13. In so far as plea of abandonment raised by respondent is concerned, the same merits rejection in view of the fact that respondent had failed to produce any record by which it could be established that whenever petitioner absented from his duty as also reflected in mandays chart Ex. RW1/B any notice or letter was ever issued. On this point respondent as RW1 has specifically admitted that whenever petitioner abandoned the job, no notice had been issued. RW1 specifically admitted that no departmental inquiry was initiated against petitioner even after October, 2001. No reason whatsoever has been assigned for such any action or omission on the part of respondent in not initiating any departmental proceedings or making correspondence calling upon the petitioner to join service. This prima facie belies the stand taken2843 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 by the respondent as abandonment has to be proved like any other fact in issue. The petitioner, on the other hand, as PW1 in cross-examination has specifically denied that he used to leave the job in between and attended the work intermittently rather he has claimed that intermittent breaks had been deliberately given to him by the respondent in the service record of petitioner so that petitioner did not complete 160 days of work as required for Pangi Tehsil area and also for applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. As such, in absence of any specific and reliable evidence led by respondent, it would be unsafe to hold that respondent had established plea of abandonment.

14. A bare glance on the mandays chart Ex. RW1/B would reveal that petitioner had worked for 89 days in the year 1998, 124 days in 1999, 137 days in 2000 and 133 days in 2001 and thus a total of his service in 1998 to 2001 in 04 years he had worked for 483 days in his entire service period. Be it noticed that petitioner had not worked for more than 160 days and as there is no reference from the Labour Commissioner, Shimla on the point of artificial breaks, this court is to confine its findings only with regard to alleged illegal termination. It is evident from mandays chart Ex. RW1/B that in the year 2001 the petitioner had merely worked for 133 days and thus immediately in preceding 12 calendar months from the month of termination of petitioner had not rendered service of 160 days so as to meet requirement of law of having continuous service of one year and thus it was not at all required from respondent to have issued a notice envisaged under Section 25-F of the Act. As such, the respondent is held to have not violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

15. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has contended with vehemence that large number of workers who were junior to petitioner had been appointed from 01.8.1997 to 07.9.1999 and these workers have been retained in service and regularized. The grievance of petitioner remains that principle of 'Last come First go' was not followed as the juniors were retained and services of petitioner despite being senior was terminated without any valid reason. Ex. PW1/B, Ex. PW1/C, Ex. PW1/D are the year-wise mandays of daily waged workers who were junior to the petitioner and had joined in the year 1998 or thereafter whereas Ex. PW1/E to Ex. PW1/L are the mandays chart of other co- workers. All of these co-workers shown in Ex. PW1/C the year-wise mandays details of workers of Division HPPWD Killar were certainly junior to petitioner who were given sufficient work existing in those years more than 200 days in a year whereas the petitioner had been not given muster roll for the whole month. Ex. RW1/C also established that all the co-workers shown in this document have worked for more than 160 days in most of the years although they were junior to petitioner. Evidently, there is no iota of evidence of respondent establishing that petitioner was called upon to join for service at any time after October, 2001 even at the time when junior persons were reengaged. That being so the respondent had certainly violated the provisions of Section 25- G of the Act as the juniors workers mentioned in para no.3 of the affidavit were retained whereas petitioner was senior from these co-workers having joined service in 1995 was terminated and even thereafter respondent omitted to afford opportunity to petitioner for reemployment for work which also violates the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of Central Bank of India vs. S. Satyam, 1996 (5) SCC 419 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for the applicability of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act, there was no necessity of claimant/petitioner to have worked for 240 days as in case of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

16. Repudiating claim of petitioner, the respondent, on the other hand, has made futile attempt to justify engagement of junior workers and their retention in service on the basis of orders of Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Court of H.P. as reflected in Ex. RW1/D1 to Ex RW1/D21. These judgments/orders have been gone through which revealed that respondent had wrongly terminated the services of those claimant/petitioner 2844 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 and for said reasons they were directed to be reinstated. Thus, plea that persons were directed to be appointed in pursuance to awards/orders Ext. Rw1/D1 to Ex. RW1/D21 were primarily on the basis of court orders would not defeat the claim of the petitioner as status of these person being junior to petitioner does not get negatived. As such, even when petitioner is proved to have not worked for more than 160 days in preceding 8 years which entitled him for regularization of his service per government policy, yet respondent is not absolved from its accountability of provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act and as such it is held that respondent had violated the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. 17. Ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner has contended that after petitioner's termination in October, 2001, he had remained unemployed and was not earning anything thereafter as such was entitled for full back wages. Repudiating the arguments of ld. Authorized Representative of petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. for the State has taken this court through cross- examination of the petitioner who has admitted that he had cultivatable land with him and also worked a private labourer. Thus, plea of having remained not gainfully employed gets belied admission of petitioner in cross-examination in which he had maintained that he had been earning from agricultural land as well as he has been working as daily wager privately. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. M. Nagangouda (2007) 10 SCC 765 in which Division Bench comprising of Justice A.R. Lakshmanan and Justice Altamas Kabir had held that 'term gainfully employment would also include self employment wherefrom income is generated. It was income either from employment in an establishment or from self employment merely differentiates the sources from which income is generated, the end use being the same'. Applying the ratio of judgment of 2007 (supra) to this case since the petitioner was earning from his agricultural and manual pursuits, the same were sufficient to maintain him and his family. It is thus held that petitioner was gainfully employed. Be it stated here that Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase's case has held that the Labour Court was not justified in holding that merely because the respondent was receiving agriculture income, he cannot be treated to be engaged in gainful employment. Since the petitioner had income from agriculture pursuits for his livelihood it cannot be stated that petitioner was not gainfully employed and thus would not be entitled full back wages. In view of the forgoing discussion, it is held that the relationship of workman and employer existed between petitioner and respondent and that petitioner was illegally retrenched without compliance of Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Act although remained gainfully employed after his retrenchment. Thus, applying the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court (2007 supra), it may not be erroneous to hold that petitioner was gainfully employed and thus would be not entitled for back wages for the period he was out of job on being terminated by the respondent.

18. Lastly, Ld. Dy. D.A. for State has contended with vehemence that there is inordinate and explained delay which disentitles petitioner relief claimed for by him. On the other hand, ld. Authorized Representative for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014 Lab IC 4266 (SC) and the relevant paras of the judgment are produced below for reference:

"12. Therefore, in our considered view, the observations made by this Court in the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board case (supra) upon which the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana has placed reliance cannot be applied to the fact situation of the case on hand, for the reason that the Labour Court has erroneously rejected the reference without judiciously considering all the relevant factors of the case particularly the points of dispute referred to it and answered the 2nd issue regarding the reference being barred by limitation but not on the merits of the case. The said decision has no application to the fact situation and also for the reason2845 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 the catena of decisions of this Court referred to supra, wherein this Court has categorically held that the provisions of Limitation Act under Article 137 has no application to make reference by the appropriate government to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of existing industrial dispute between workmen and the employer.

13. In the case on hand, no doubt there is a delay in raising the dispute by the appellant; the Labour Court nevertheless has the power to mould the relief accordingly. At the time of adjudication, if the dispute referred to the Labour Court is not adjudicated by it, it does not mean that the dispute ceases to exist. The appropriate government in exercise of its statutory power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act can refer the industrial dispute, between the parties, at any time, to either the jurisdictional Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal as interpreted by this Court in the Avon Services case referred to supra. Therefore, the State Government has rightly exercised its power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act and referred the points of dispute to the Labour Court as the same are in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Avon Services & Sapan Kumar Pandit cases referred to supra.

14. Further, the workman cannot be denied to seek relief only on the ground of

delay in raising the dispute as held in the case of S.M. Nilajkar & Ors. v. Telecom

District Manager, Karnataka[4] it was held by this Court as follows—

"17. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that on account of delay in raising the dispute by the appellants the High Court was justified in denying relief to the appellants. We cannot agree...... In Ratan Chandra Sammanta and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra)1993 AIR SCW 2214, it was held that a casual labourer retrenched by the employer deprives himself of remedy available in law by delay itself, lapse of time results in losing the remedy and the right as well. The delay would certainly be fatal if it has resulted in material evidence relevant to adjudication being lost and rendered not available. However, we do not think that the delay in the case at hand has been so culpable as to disentitle the appellants for any relief....." (Emphasis laid by the Court) In view of the legal principles laid down by this Court in the above judgment, the reference of the industrial dispute made in the case on hand by the State Government to the Labour Court to adjudicate the existing industrial dispute between the parties was made within a reasonable time, considering the circumstances in which the workman was placed, firstly, as there was a criminal case pending against him and secondly, the respondent had assured the workman that he would be reinstated after his acquittal from the criminal case. Moreover, it is reasonable to adjudicate the industrial dispute in spite of the delay in raising and referring the matter, since there is no mention of any loss or unavailability of material evidence due to the delay. Thus, we do not consider the delay in raising the industrial dispute and referring the same to the Labour Court for adjudication as gravely erroneous and it does not debar the workman from claiming rightful relief from his employer.

15. In the case of Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum- Processing Service Society Limited & Anr.[5] this Court has opined that relief cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay, stating that:-

"10. It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labour court can2846 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay in shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/ termination or dismissal. The Court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full back wages....." (Emphasis laid by the Court)

16. Hence, we are of the opinion, having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case that there is no delay or latches on the part of the workman from the date of his acquittal in the criminal case. Thereafter, upon failure of the respondent in adhering to the assurance given to the workman that he would be reinstated after his acquittal from the criminal case, the workman approached the conciliation officer and the State Government to make a reference to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute with regard to the order of dismissal passed by the respondent. Keeping in mind the date of acquittal of the appellant and the date on which he approached the conciliation officer by raising the dispute, since the respondent had not adhered to its assurance, the State Government had rightly referred the dispute for its adjudication. Therefore it cannot be said that there was a delay on the part of the appellant in raising the dispute and getting it referred to the Labour Court by the State Government.

17. Further, the Labour Court on an erroneous assumption of law framed the additional issue regarding the limitation in raising the dispute and its reference by the State Government to the Labour Court. Thus, the Labour Court has ignored the legal principles laid down by this Court in the cases referred to supra. The award passed by the Labour Court was accepted erroneously by both the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court by dismissing the Civil Writ Petition & the Letters Patent Appeal without examining the case in its proper perspective, keeping in view the power of the State Government under Section 10(1)(c) and the object and intendment of the Act. Not adjudicating the existing industrial dispute on merits between the parties referred to it may lead to disruption of industrial peace and harmony, which is the foremost important aspect in Industrial Jurisprudence as the same would affect the public interest at large.

19. Ld. counsel representing respondent department has also contended with vehemence that claim petition is barred by limitation on account of delay and laches. It has been pointed that termination of petitioner in this case took place on 2001 and the industrial dispute was raised after several years of retrenchment. Repudiating the argument by ld. counsel, ld. AR for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment reported in 2007 LHLJ 903 Hon'ble High Court of H.P. (Bhatag Ram's case) in which it has been held that delay in raising dispute may be considered by court at the time of granting final relief however in various other judgments even longer delay has been condoned. In Divisional Manager, HPFC & another vs. Garibu Ram, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 1160, delay of more than 10 years was condoned besides Hon'ble High Court has held that principle of Limitation Act is not applicable to the industrial dispute. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajayab Singh vs. Sirhind Co- operative Marketing- cum-Processing Society Limited and Another, (1999) 6 SCC 82 in which it has been held that the principle of Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply to the proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act.

20. Relying upon the aforestated judgment, it has been contended that claim of petitioner cannot be defeated on the point of delay and laches. Repudiating arguments advanced by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub- Division Kota and Mohan Lal [2013 (139) FLR 125], the relevant para of the judgment are produced below for reference:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 25-F and 10- Limitation Act, 1963- Section 5- Industrial dispute- Termination of service-Finding of Lboaur Court that workman had completed 240 days in calander year and his termination was in violation o section 25-F of the I.D.Act- Wrokman worked from 1.11.1984 to 17.2.1986 in all 286 days during employment. His services terminated on 18.2.1986. Industrial dispute raised after 6 years of termination. Admitted delay of 6 years not kept in view by the Labour Court- Judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court flawed and unsustainable. Reinstatement of the workman not the appropriate relief. In lieu of reinstatement compensation of Rs.one lac directed to be paid to the workman by the appellant- employer within six weeks failing which interest @ workman 9% p.a. will be payable. [Paras 21 and 22] Limitation Act, 1963. Section 5- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Section 25-F- Termination of service- Industrial dispute raised after six years- Limitation Act not applicable to reference made under the I.D. Act-Delay in raising industrial disputes definitely an important circumstances which the Labour Court must keep in view before granting relief".

I have gone through the rival contention of the ld. Authorized Representative as well as ld. Dy. D.A. for State. Keeping in view the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments referred to above it is held that delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely an important circumstance and court has to keep in mind while exercising discretion. In para nos. 20 and 21 of judgment 2013 supra has referred to Gitam Singh's case reported in 2013 (136) FLR 893 (SC) titled as Assistant Engineer Rajasthan Development Corporation and another vs. Geetam Singh observing that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and the delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment (2013 supra) before that workman had worked for 286 days and had raised industrial dispute in 1992 whereas his services have been terminated in 1986 and he raised industrial dispute after six years. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that though compensation awarded by Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court was too low and liable to be enhanced by the Division Bench but surely reinstatement of the workman in the facts and circumstances is not the appropriate relief and thus Hon'ble Apex Court awarded a lump- sum of Rs.1 lakh along-with interest @ 9% per annum if the respondent failed to make payment of compensation within six weeks from the date of judgment. In the case in hand before this court factors which have weighed are that the petitioner in all remained engaged for about 04 years and actually worked for 483 days as per mandays chart on record and that the services of petitioner were disengaged in October, 2001 who worked as non skilled worker and had raised industrial dispute by issuance of demand notice after about ten years i.e. demand notice was given on 26.01.2011. It is also pertinent to mention here that petitioner on the date of filing claim petition was ageing 45 years who has sufficient spell of life to work and earn his livelihood. Taking into consideration factors mentioned above in pursuance to judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court petitioner would not be entitled either for reinstatement or for back wages but compensation a lump-sum would be appropriate relief in view of judgment 2013 (139) FLR 25 (SC). The judgments relied upon by ld. Authorized Representative for petitioner on the matter of delay and laches is more or less settled law that claim of the petitioner could not be solely declined on the ground of delay and laches. Similarly, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in 2014 titled as Raghubir Singh's case also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner as in this judgment also the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the mandate as given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in previous judgment in the year 2013 i.e. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division Kota and Mohan Lal's case. Similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment titled as Vice Chancellor, 2848 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh v. Akhilesh Kumar Khare & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 3473.

21. In view of foregoing discussion, a lump-sum compensation of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) would be a appropriate relief to which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above. It is further made clear that amount of compensation shall be paid within four months from the date of Award failing which the petitioner would be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from date of Award and its realization. Issues no. 1, 2 and 4 are answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.3

22. On the plea of non-maintainability of the claim petition under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has failed to allege in reply in what manner petition is not maintainable. Thus, vague plea merits rejection outright. Otherwise also, from pleadings and evidence on record, no inference of claim petition being not maintainable could be raised against claimant/petitioner. This issue is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondent.

RELIEF

23. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, the respondent is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) to the petitioner in lieu of the reinstatement in services as well as the other consequential service benefits. Amount of compensation so awarded shall be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within four months from today failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay the interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of award till the date of its realization. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

24. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

25. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette.

26. File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.

Announced in the open Court today this 18th day of May, 2016.

(K.K. Sharma)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

____________

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA (HP)

Ref No. : 28/2014

Date of Institution : 20.01.2014

Date of decision : 25.05.2016

Shri Jagdish Chand s/o Shri Dhogri Ram, r/o Village Trindh, P.O. Gangoti, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. . .Petitioner.

The Executive Engineer, (B&R) Division, H.P.P.W.D. Joginder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. . .Respondent.

Reference under section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. Suresh Kumar Sharma, Adv.

For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A.

AWARD

1. The following reference has been received from the appropriate Government for adjudication:

"Whether time to time termination of the services of Shri Jagdish Chand S/O Shri Dhogri Ram, R/O Village Trindh, P.O. Gangoti, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. during the year 2002 to 2007 by the Executive Engineer, B&R Division HPPWD, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employer?"

2. On receipt of reference from appropriate government, notices were issued to the parties in pursuance to which claimant/petitioner has filed his statement of claim.

3. Brief facts as set up in the claim petition reveal that petitioner was engaged as daily rated beldar by respondent w.e.f. 01.11.2001in its National Highway Division, Joginder Nagar and later he (petitioner) worked with the respondent in the newly created HPPWD Division in 2004 but he was given fictional breaks from time to time from his initial engagement till 31.8.2007. It is alleged that he was issued muster rolls for 15 days in a month, though the work was available for the entire month but, his juniors namely Dalip Singh, Gautam Singh, Geeta Devi, Pradeep Kumar, Kishhori Lal, Sanjay Kumar, Bhag Mal, Nihal Chand, Anil Kumar and Chanchal. were not given such breaks and they were allowed to complete 240 days in each calendar year and the above named juniors have now been regularized. It is alleged that the respondent has stopped giving fictional breaks to the petitioner from 01.9.2007 and thereafter, the petitioner has completed 240 days in each calendar year. Therefore, there has been violation of the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity). This Court/Tribunal has already decided a similar matter i.e. Reference No.110/2006 titled as General Secretary vs. Executive Engineer, HPPWD per Award dated 02.11.2010 in favour of the workmen. The petitioner thus has filed a demand notice with the labour department but matter could not be reconciled as the petitioner has prayed for giving him the benefit of seniority, regularization and back wages etc.

4. Respondent contested petition, filed separate reply inter-alia taken preliminary objections of maintainability, petition being bad for non- joinder of necessary parties and claim petition being bad on account of delay and laches. On merits, engagement of the petitioner from November, 2001 is admitted. The allegation of giving fictional breaks up-to 31.8.2007 has been specifically denied. It is alleged that the work was made available to the petitioner as per the requirement and availability of the funds from time to time as per mandays chart annexure-RII 2850 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 and R-III and that all the workers in the annexure R-III were senior to the petitioner who have since been regularized. It is further alleged that the disengagement of the workmen on the availability of the funds and the work was strictly in accordance with the policy of 'last come first go' and thus allegation of violation of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act has been specifically denied. Thus, relying upon the plea of reference of regularization of petitioner, cause of action as pleaded in the claim petition filed by petitioner is denied and the petition is sought to be dismissed.

5. No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner.

6. To prove his case, petitioner had examined himself as PW1 tendered/proved his affidavit Ex. PW1/ A under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC and closed evidence. On the other hand, repudiating the evidence led by petitioner, respondent had examined Shri V.S. Guleria, the then Executive Engineer, HPPWD (B&R) Division, Joginder Nagar as RW1, tendered Ex. RW1/A copy of letter dated 9th December, 2003, Ex. RW1/B regarding creation of PWD Division (B&R) Joginder Nagar in the year 2004, Ex. RW1/C mandays chart of petitioner, Ex. RW1/D year- wise working days of daily wage Beldar and closed evidence.

7. I have heard the Authorized Representative/counsel representing petitioner and ld. Dy. D.A. for respondent, gone through records of the case carefully.

8. From the contentions raised, following issues were framed on 30.05.2015 for determination:

1. Whether time to time termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent during the year 2002 to 2007 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged? . .OPP.

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

3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? . .OPR.

4. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged? . .OPR.

5. Whether the claim petition is bad on account of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner as alleged? If so, its effect? . .OPR.

Relief.

9. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing the aforesaid issues, my findings on the aforesaid issues are as follows:

Issue No.1 : Yes

Issue No.2 : Discussed Issue No.3 : No

Issue No.4 : No Issue No.5 : No

Relief : Petition is allowed per operative part of the Award.

ISSUES NO. 1 AND 2

10. Both these issues have been taken up together for discussion being interconnected which can be disposed of simultaneously without repetition of evidence.

11. Factum of petitioner having been appointed as daily waged beldar on muster roll by the respondent w.e.f. November, 2001 is not in dispute. It is the admitted case of petitioner that he had worked since November, 2001 but he had been deliberately given fictional breaks by respondent so that he could not complete 240 days to get benefits of Section 25-B of the Act. The plea of respondent, on the other hand remains that petitioner was still working but had been working intermittently as he of his own use to not come on his duty besides he willfully absented several times from it.

12. To appreciate the genuineness of the plea so raised by respondent, suffice would be to state here that bald assertion of the respondent cannot be accepted that petitioner willfully absented from his duties as there is nothing corresponding in evidence to show that any letter or intimation was sent to petitioner for his unauthorized absence from his duties as absence from duty is serious misconduct, it is projected to be case as if petitioner came of his own and worked at his whims. The plea of petitioner, on the other hand remains that fictional breaks were deliberately given to him and that several other persons junior to petitioner namely Smt. Geeta Devi, Dalip Singh, Goutam Singh and Anil Kumar and others have been regularized by respondent who were actually not given fictional breaks at any point of time.

13. Perusal of mandays chart Ex. RW1/C would reveal that in the year 2001 petitioner had worked for 29 days, 154 days in 2002, 154 days in 2003, 100 days in 2004, 128 days in 2005, 106 days in 2006, 222 days in 2007, 334 days in 2008, 333 days in 2009, 348 days in 2010 and 311 days in 2011. It can be noticed that in the several years petitioner has worked for less than 240 days, whereas for other remaining years he had worked for more than 240 days. Seniority list of regular labourers HPPWD (B&R) Division has also been relied upon by respondent which is Ex. RW1/D on record in which all the persons named above are shown to have joined in the years 2002, 2003 and 2004 except at serial nos.3,6,7 & 10 who had joined earlier to petitioner whereas petitioner had joined in 2001. Since respondent had not disputed to have engaged petitioner in November, 2001, he ought to have been regularized having continuously worked for about 7 years with requisite number of days required for regularization and on account of fictional break as stated above, which would show that other persons who had joined along-with him have been regularized but the petitioner has been deprived of his legitimate right for regularization till now. Thus, break in service being within a period of nine years from his termination was definitely a fictional break as in remaining years he had worked for more than 240 days. The act of the respondent in giving fictional break is manifestly arbitrary without any basis. Although respondent department ipso facto does not dislodge petitioner from claiming his seniority and continuity in service from his initial engagement but fictional breaks in no manner would affect or eclipse legitimate right of regularization in service of petitioner. However, petitioner has admitted in cross- examination that he had agricultural land and remained employed and as such it could not be stated with certainty that petitioner was not gainfully employed during the period of fictional breaks.

14. Stepping into the witness box as PW1, petitioner has sworn in detailed affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC stipulating therein that he had been engaged and disengaged between 2001 to 2007 by giving fictional break whereas the persons junior to petitioner have been continuously engaged by department for the whole year who had completed more than 240 days in a calendar 2852 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 year as they had been invariably issued muster roll for whole of month in these years. In cross- examination, petitioner has admitted that he has been regularly provided with more than 240 days of work after 2007 which means the dispute is only for the years 2001 to 2007 as stated in the affidavit. It needs to be noticed that other co-workers working with petitioner or say who were junior were given muster roll for full month so that they completed 240 days in a year. RW1 Shri V.S. Guleria has admitted in cross-examination that seniority list Ex. RW1/D of all the labourers who have been shown in the said seniority list were employed after the engagement of the petitioner except serial nos. 3,6,7 & 10. He has admitted that working of 240 days is to be established by petitioner to claim benefit of deemed service under Section 25- B of the Act. He has admitted that petitioner has been engaged in the year 2001 who had not been issued any appointment letter but denied that petitioner had been deliberately given breaks in the years from 2001 to 2007 but he could not plead so as no corresponding record has been produced by the respondent to establish that on absence of petitioner from his duty, any notice was issued for unauthorized absence and the version of RW1 that petitioner came and worked & go of his own from duty cannot be accepted which manifestly appear to be afterthought. Moreover, RW1 has admitted that as per record no notice was given to petitioner for his absence from duty at any point of time. Since absence from duty is serous misconduct, and there being nothing on record to show initiation of proceeding, plea set forth by respondent qua abandonment of job by petitioner intermittently merits rejection. As such, the plea of fictional break given to the petitioner from the year 2001 to 2007 gets substantiated not only from documentary evidence on record but from testimony on oath of RW1 as well. Although, petitioner being in employment at the time of passing of award, being given fictional breaks as stated above is duly established but petitioner cannot be deprived of his legitimate right to seek seniority as well as continuity in service from his date of joining along-with other persons working with him. Thus, petitioner could not have been discriminated arbitrarily who has certainly been discriminated as stated in foregoing paras. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is held that time to time termination of the services of the petitioner and giving fictional breaks in service by the respondent during 2001 to 2007 was certainly illegal and unjustified which is manifestly in contravention of provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of the Act but as the petitioner is still in employment with the respondent, he is to be given benefit of seniority and continuity in service except back wages in the circumstances of the case. Issues are accordingly decided in part in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

ISSUE NO.3

15. On the plea of non-maintainability of the claim petition under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has failed to allege in reply in what manner petition is not maintainable. Otherwise also, from pleadings and evidence on record, no inference of claim petition being not maintainable could be raised against claimant/petitioner. As such, issue in hand is answered in negative against the respondent and in favour of petitioner.

ISSUE NO.4

16. In the light of my findings on the issues no.1 and 2 in foregoing para, it is held that the Executive Engineer, HPPWD, National Highway Division, Joginder Nagar is not a necessary party to be impleaded in this case in claim petition as petitioner was initially appointed with respndoent only PW1 has admitted in cross-examination that petitioner was working with respondent although he earlier worked with Executive Engineer HPPWD National Highways. Thus, creation of separate HPWPD division vide office order Ex. RW1/D shall have no serious consequence on merits of case. Issue in hand is answered in negative in favour of petitioner and against respondent.

17. Ld. Dy. D.A. representing state respondent has contended that petition so filed was bad on account of delay and laches. It is evident from findings in foregoing paras that petitioner was given fictional breaks from 1999 to 2007 which was not within knowledge of petitioner. It seems that when workmen junior to petitioner had been regularized, he come to know about intermittent breaks. The matter was brought to notice of Conciliation Officer where it did not materialize and consequently Labour Commissioner made reference to this court. Ld. counsel for petitioner, on the other hand, has maintained that no prejudice had been caused to petitioner. Moreover, not a single question has been asked by ld. Dy. D.A. on delay to the petitioner. As such, delay which is not questioned stands explained as stated above. Otherwise also, plea of delay or limitation would not eclipse claim of petitioner in any manner. It is settled preposition of law that in case a dispute is referred to for determination, the Court will have to return a finding on merits and the delay in raising the dispute may be considered by the Court at the time of granting the final relief, as has been held by our own Hon'ble High Court in Bhatag Ram's case (2007 LHLJ 903). In Divisional Manager, HPFC & another vs. Garibu Ram, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 1160, the delay of more than 10 years was held to have not come in the way of the workman whose services were illegally terminated by holding that the provisions of Limitation Act is not applicable to industrial dispute but however, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, the principle of delay and laches have to be seen and applied. In Deepa Ram vs. State of H.P. and Ors., 2005 (1) Himachal Law Journal 248, there was a delay of 12 years. In Ramesh Chand vs. Union of India, CWP No. 812 of 2000, there was a delay of 9 years. In CWP No. 95 of 2000 titled as Divisional Manager vs. Mohinder Kumar, there was a delay of 14 years. In Naginder Kumar vs. HPSEB and anr. 2008 (1) SLJ (H.P.) 425, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. that the Labour Court cannot dismiss the claim on the ground of delay and laches once the same has been referred by the State Government and the Labour Court is bound to decide the reference which was made by the State Government and same is required to be adjudicated upon the merits without touching the aspect of delay and laches. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. vs. Gopal Bhiva & Ors, AIR 1964 SC 752, has categorically held that as such of all those employees, who are entitled to take the benefit of Section 33-C (2) may not always be conscious of their rights and it may not be right to put the restriction of limitation in respect of claim which they may have to make under the provision and in absence of any provision for limitation, it may not be open to the Court to introduce the limitation on the ground of fairness and justice. In Ajayab Singh vs. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing- cum-Processing Society Limited and Another, (1999) 6 SCC 82, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:

"The provisions of Article 137 of Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the

proceeding under the ID Act. The relief under the ID Act cannot be denied merely on

the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be

proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical

defence. No reference to the Labour Court can be generally questioned on the ground of

delay alone".

18. No material has been placed on record by the respondents to establish that there was inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in raising the dispute in the instant case or that any prejudice had been caused to respondent. Accordingly, the petition as filed by the petitioner cannot be held to be hit by the vice of delays and laches as alleged by the respondent. Hence, this issue is decided against the respondent and is answered accordingly.

RELIEF

19. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, petitioner is held to be in continuous uninterrupted service with the respondent from the date of his initial engagement, the breaks given 2854 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 by the respondent being fictional in nature shall have no effect on the seniority and continuity of service of the petitioner and his seniority shall be reckoned from his initial date of engagement. Accordingly, claim of petitioner is hereby allowed in part and reference is accordingly answered in favour of petitioner. The petitioner shall thus be deemed to be in continuous service of respondent with all consequential benefits except back wages. He shall, however, be considered for regularization by respondent at the time when his juniors have been regularized as per policy governing daily wagers as framed by State Govt. and operative from time to time. The parties, however, shall bear their own costs.

20. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

21. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette.

22. File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.

day of May, 2016.

Announced in the open Court today this 25th

(K. K. Sharma) Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P.

___________

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA (HP)

Ref. No. : 353/2014

Date of Institution : 16.12.2014

Date of decision : 25.05.2016

Shri Sansar Chand s/o Shri Rasma Ram, r/o Village Kathoun, P.O. Panjalag, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

The Executive Engineer, (B&R) Division, H.P.P.W.D. Joginder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. . . Respondent.

Reference under section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. Suresh Kumar Sharma, Adv.

For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A.

AWARD

1. The following reference has been received from the appropriate Government for adjudication:

"Whether time to time termination of the services of Shri Sansar Chand S/O Shri Rasma Ram, R/O Village Kathoun, P.O. Panjalag, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. during September, 1998 to 31-08-2007 by the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D., (B&R) Division Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employer(s)?"

2. On receipt of reference from appropriate government, notices were issued to the parties in pursuance to which claimant/petitioner has filed his statement of claim.

3. Brief facts as set up in the claim petition reveal that petitioner was engaged as daily rated beldar by respondent w.e.f. 28.9.1998 in its National Highway Division, Joginder Nagar and later he (petitioner) worked with the respondent in the newly created HPPWD Division in 2004 but he was given fictional breaks from time to time from his initial engagement till 31.8.2007. It is alleged that he was issued muster rolls for 15 days in a month, though the work was available for the entire month but, his juniors namely Dalip Singh, Gautam Singh, Geeta Devi, Pradeep Kumar, Kishhori Lal, Sanjay Kumar, Bhag Mal, Nihal Chand, Anil Kumar and Chanchal. were not given such breaks and they were allowed to complete 240 days in each calendar year and the above named juniors have now been regularized. It is alleged that the respondent has stopped giving fictional breaks to the petitioner from 01.9.2007 and thereafter, the petitioner has completed 240 days in each calendar year. Therefore, there has been violation of the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity). This Court/Tribunal has already decided a similar matter i.e. Reference No.110/2006 titled as General Secretary vs. Executive Engineer, HPPWD per Award dated 02.11.2010 in favour of the workmen. The petitioner thus has filed a demand notice with the labour department but matter could not be reconciled as the petitioner has prayed for giving him the benefit of seniority, regularization and back wages etc.

4. Respondent contested petition, filed separate reply inter-alia taken preliminary objections of maintainability, petition being bad for non- joinder of necessary parties and claim petition being bad on account of delay and laches. On merits, engagement of the petitioner from October, 1998 is admitted. The allegation of giving fictional breaks up-to 31.8.2007 has been specifically denied. It is alleged that the work was made available to the petitioner as per the requirement and availability of the funds from time to time as per mandays chart annexure-RII and R-III and that all the workers in the annexure R-III were senior to the petitioner who have since been regularized. It is further alleged that the disengagement of the workmen on the availability of the funds and the work was strictly in accordance with the policy of 'last come first go' and thus allegation of violation of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act has been specifically denied. Thus, relying upon the plea of reference of regularization of petitioner, cause of action as pleaded in the claim petition filed by petitioner is denied and the petition is sought to be dismissed.

5. No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner.

6. To prove his case, petitioner had examined himself as PW1 tendered/proved his affidavit Ex. PW1/ A under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC and closed evidence. On the other hand, repudiating the evidence led by petitioner, respondent had examined Shri V.S. Guleria, the then Executive Engineer, HPPWD (B&R) Division, Joginder Nagar as RW1, tendered Ex. RW1/A copy of letter dated 9th December, 2003, Ex. RW1/B regarding creation of PWD Division (B&R) Joginder Nagar in the year 2004, Ex. RW1/C mandays chart of petitioner, Ex. RW1/D year- wise working days of daily wage Beldar and closed evidence.

2856 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 7. I have heard the Authorized Representative/counsel representing petitioner and ld. Dy. D.A. for respondent, gone through records of the case carefully.

8. From the contentions raised, following issues were framed on 16.05.2015 for determination:

1. Whether time to time termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent during the years September, 1998 to 31-08-2007 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged? . .OPP.

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

3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? . .OPR.

4. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged? . .OPR.

5. Whether the petition is bad on account of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner as alleged? . .OPR.

Relief.

9. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing the aforesaid issues, my findings on the aforesaid issues are as follows:

Issue No.1 : Yes

Issue No.2 : Discussed Issue No.3 : No

Issue No.4 : No Issue No.5 : No

Relief : Petition is allowed per operative part of the Award.

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

ISSUES NO. 1 AND 2

10. Both these issues have been taken up together for discussion being interconnected which can be disposed of simultaneously without repetition of evidence.

11. Factum of petitioner having been appointed as daily waged beldar on muster roll by the respondent w.e.f. October, 1998 is not in dispute. It is the admitted case of petitioner that he had worked since October, 1998 but he had been deliberately given fictional breaks by respondent so that he could not complete 240 days to get benefits of Section 25-B of the Act. The plea of respondent, on the other hand remains that petitioner was still working but had been working intermittently as he of his own use to not come on his duty besides he willfully absented several times from it.

12. To appreciate the genuineness of the plea so raised by respondent, suffice would be to state here that bald assertion of the respondent cannot be accepted that petitioner willfully absented from his duties as there is nothing corresponding in evidence to show that any2857 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 letter or intimation was sent to petitioner for his unauthorized absence from his duties as absence from duty is serious misconduct, it is projected to be case as if petitioner came of his own and worked at his whims. The plea of petitioner, on the other hand remains that fictional breaks were deliberately given to him and that several other persons junior to petitioner namely Smt. Geeta Devi, Dalip Singh, Goutam Singh and Anil Kumar and others have been regularized by respondent who were actually not given fictional breaks at any point of time.

13. Perusal of mandays chart Ex. RW1/C would reveal that in the year 1998 petitioner had worked for 57 days, 163 days in 1999, 188 days in 2000, 169 days in 2001, 170 days in 2002, 171 days in 2003, 158 days in 2004, 164 days in 2005, 147 days in 2006, 188 days in 2007, 295 days in 2008, 277 days in 2009, 293 days in 2010, 278 days in 2011, 254 days in 2012 and 290 days in 2013. It can be noticed that in the several years petitioner has worked for less than 240 days, whereas for other remaining years he had worked for more than 240 days. Seniority list of regular labourers HPPWD (B&R) Division has also been relied upon by respondent which is Ex. RW1/D on record in which all the persons named above are shown to have joined in the years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 except at serial no.6 who had joined earlier to petitioner whereas petitioner had joined in 1998. Since respondent had not disputed to have engaged petitioner in October, 1998, he ought to have been regularized having continuously worked for about 9 years with requisite number of days required for regularization and on account of fictional break as stated above, which would show that other persons who had joined along-with him have been regularized but the petitioner has been deprived of his legitimate right for regularization till now. Thus, break in service being within a period of nine years from his termination was definitely a fictional break as in remaining years he had worked for more than 240 days. The act of the respondent in giving fictional break is manifestly arbitrary without any basis. Although respondent department ipso facto does not dislodge petitioner from claiming his seniority and continuity in service from his initial engagement but fictional breaks in no manner would affect or eclipse legitimate right of regularization in service of petitioner. However, petitioner has admitted in cross- examination that he had agricultural land and remained employed and as such it could not be stated with certainty that petitioner was not gainfully employed during the period of fictional breaks.

14. Stepping into the witness box as PW1, petitioner has sworn in detailed affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC stipulating therein that he had been engaged and disengaged between 1998 to 2007 by giving fictional break whereas the persons junior to petitioner have been continuously engaged by department for the whole year who had completed more than 240 days in a calendar year as they had been invariably issued muster roll for whole of month in these years. In cross- examination, petitioner has admitted that he has been regularly provided with more than 240 days of work after 2007 which means the dispute is only for the years 1998 to 2007 as stated in the affidavit. It needs to be noticed that other co-workers working with petitioner or say who were junior were given muster roll for full month so that they completed 240 days in a year. RW1 Shri V.S. Guleria has admitted in cross-examination that seniority list Ex. RW1/D of all the labourers who have been shown in the said seniority list were employed after the engagement of the petitioner except serial no.6. He has admitted that working of 240 days is to be established by petitioner to claim benefit of deemed service under Section 25-B of the Act. He has admitted that petitioner has been engaged in the year 1998 who had not been issued any appointment letter but denied that petitioner had been deliberately given breaks in the years from 1998 to 2007 but he could not plead so as no corresponding record has been produced by the respondent to establish that on absence of petitioner from his duty, any notice was issued for unauthorized absence and the version of RW1 that petitioner came and worked & go of his own from duty cannot be accepted which manifestly appear to be afterthought. Moreover, RW1 has admitted that as per record no notice was given to petitioner for his absence from duty at any point of time. Since absence from duty is serous misconduct, and there being nothing on record 2858 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 to show initiation of proceeding, plea set forth by respondent qua abandonment of job by petitioner intermittently merits rejection. As such, the plea of fictional break given to the petitioner from the year 1998 to 2007 gets substantiated not only from documentary evidence on record but from testimony on oath of RW1 as well. Although, petitioner being in employment at the time of passing of award, being given fictional breaks as stated above is duly established but petitioner cannot be deprived of his legitimate right to seek seniority as well as continuity in service from his date of joining along-with other persons working with him. Thus, petitioner could not have been discriminated arbitrarily who has certainly been discriminated as stated in foregoing paras. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is held that time to time termination of the services of the petitioner and giving fictional breaks in service by the respondent during 1998 to 2007 was certainly illegal and unjustified which is manifestly in contravention of provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of the Act but as the petitioner is still in employment with the respondent, he is to be given benefit of seniority and continuity in service except back wages in the circumstances of the case. Issues are accordingly decided in part in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

ISSUE NO. 3

15. On the plea of non-maintainability of the claim petition under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has failed to allege in reply in what manner petition is not maintainable. Otherwise also, from pleadings and evidence on record, no inference of claim petition being not maintainable could be raised against claimant/petitioner. As such, issue in hand is answered in negative against the respondent and in favour of petitioner.

ISSUE NO. 4

16. In the light of my findings on the issues no.1 and 2 in foregoing para, it is held that the Executive Engineer, HPPWD, National Highway Division, Joginder Nagar is not a necessary party to be impleaded in this case in claim petition as petitioner was initially appointed with respndoent only PW1 has admitted in cross-examination that petitioner was working with respondent although he earlier worked with Executive Engineer HPPWD National Highways. Thus, creation of separate HPWPD division vide office order Ex. RW1/D shall have no serious consequence on merits of case. Issue in hand is answered in negative in favour of petitioner and against respondent.

ISSUE NO. 5

17. Ld. Dy. D.A. representing state respondent has contended that petition so filed was bad on account of delay and laches. It is evident from findings in foregoing paras that petitioner was given fictional breaks from 1998 to 2007 which was not within knowledge of petitioner. It seems that when workmen junior to petitioner had been regularized, he come to know about intermittent breaks. The matter was brought to notice of Conciliation Officer where it did not materialize and consequently Labour Commissioner made reference to this court. Ld. counsel for petitioner, on the other hand, has maintained that no prejudice had been caused to petitioner. Moreover, not a single question has been asked by ld. Dy. D.A. on delay to the petitioner. As such, delay which is not questioned stands explained as stated above. Otherwise also, plea of delay or limitation would not eclipse claim of petitioner in any manner. It is settled preposition of law that in case a dispute is referred to for determination, the Court will have to return a finding on merits and the delay in raising the dispute may be considered by the Court at the time of granting the final relief, as has been held by our own Hon'ble High Court in Bhatag Ram's case (2007 LHLJ 903). In Divisional Manager, HPFC & another vs. Garibu2859 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 Ram, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 1160, the delay of more than 10 years was held to have not come in the way of the workman whose services were illegally terminated by holding that the provisions of Limitation Act is not applicable to industrial dispute but however, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, the principle of delay and laches have to be seen and applied. In Deepa Ram vs. State of H.P. and Ors., 2005 (1) Himachal Law Journal 248, there was a delay of 12 years. In Ramesh Chand vs. Union of India, CWP No. 812 of 2000, there was a delay of 9 years. In CWP No. 95 of 2000 titled as Divisional Manager vs. Mohinder Kumar, there was a delay of 14 years. In Naginder Kumar vs. HPSEB and anr. 2008 (1) SLJ (H.P.) 425, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. that the Labour Court cannot dismiss the claim on the ground of delay and laches once the same has been referred by the State Government and the Labour Court is bound to decide the reference which was made by the State Government and same is required to be adjudicated upon the merits without touching the aspect of delay and laches. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. vs. Gopal Bhiva & Ors, AIR 1964 SC 752, has categorically held that as such of all those employees, who are entitled to take the benefit of Section 33-C (2) may not always be conscious of their rights and it may not be right to put the restriction of limitation in respect of claim which they may have to make under the provision and in absence of any provision for limitation, it may not be open to the Court to introduce the limitation on the ground of fairness and justice. In Ajayab Singh vs. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing- cum- Processing Society Limited and Another, (1999) 6 SCC 82, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:

"The provisions of Article 137 of Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the

proceeding under the ID Act. The relief under the ID Act cannot be denied merely on

the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be

proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical

defence. No reference to the Labour Court can be generally questioned on the ground of

delay alone".

18. No material has been placed on record by the respondents to establish that there was inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in raising the dispute in the instant case or that any prejudice had been caused to respondent. Accordingly, the petition as filed by the petitioner cannot be held to be hit by the vice of delays and laches as alleged by the respondent. Hence, this issue is decided against the respondent and is answered accordingly.

RELIEF

19. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, petitioner is held to be in continuous uninterrupted service with the respondent from the date of his initial engagement, the breaks given by the respondent being fictional in nature shall have no effect on the seniority and continuity of service of the petitioner and his seniority shall be reckoned from his initial date of engagement. Accordingly, claim of petitioner is hereby allowed in part and reference is accordingly answered in favour of petitioner. The petitioner shall thus be deemed to be in continuous service of respondent with all consequential benefits except back wages. He shall, however, be considered for regularization by respondent at the time when his juniors have been regularized as per policy governing daily wagers as framed by State Govt. and operative from time to time. The parties, however, shall bear their own costs.

20. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

21. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette.

Announced in the open Court today this 25th day of May, 2016.

(K.K. Sharma) Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P.

____________

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA (HP)

Ref. No. : 390/2014

Date of Institution : 16.12.2014

Date of decision : 25.05.2016

Smt. Nirmla Devi w/o Shri Gursai, r/o Village Kund, P.O. Bihun, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

. .Respondent.

Reference under section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. Suresh Kumar Sharma, Adv.

For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A.

AWARD

1. The following reference has been received from the appropriate Government for adjudication:

"Whether time to time termination of the services of Smt. Nirmla Devi, W/O Shri Gursai, R/O Village Kund, P.O. Bihun, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. during December, 2002 to 31-08-2007 by the Executive Engineer, B&R Division H.P.P.W.D., Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employer?"

2. On receipt of reference from appropriate government, notices were issued to the parties in pursuance to which claimant/petitioner has filed her statement of claim.

3. Brief facts as set up in the claim petition reveal that petitioner was engaged as daily rated beldar by respondent w.e.f. 1.12.2002 in its National Highway Division, Joginder Nagar and later she (petitioner) worked with the respondent in the newly created HPPWD2861 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 Division in 2004 but she was given fictional breaks from time to time from her initial engagement till 31.8.2007. It is alleged that she was issued muster rolls for 15 days in a month, though the work was available for the entire month but, her juniors namely Dalip Singh, Gautam Singh, Geeta Devi, Pradeep Kumar, Kishhori Lal, Sanjay Kumar, Bhag Mal, Nihal Chand, Anil Kumar and Chanchal. were not given such breaks and they were allowed to complete 240 days in each calendar year and the above named juniors have now been regularized. It is alleged that the respondent has stopped giving fictional breaks to the petitioner from 01.9.2007 and thereafter, the petitioner has completed 240 days in each calendar year. Therefore, there has been violation of the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity). This Court/Tribunal has already decided a similar matter i.e. Reference No.110/2006 titled as General Secretary vs. Executive Engineer, HPPWD per Award dated 02.11.2010 in favour of the workmen. The petitioner thus has filed a demand notice with the labour department but matter could not be reconciled as the petitioner has prayed for giving her the benefit of seniority, regularization and back wages etc.

4. Respondent contested petition, filed separate reply inter-alia taken preliminary objections of maintainability, petition being bad for non- joinder of necessary parties and claim petition being bad on account of delay and laches. On merits, engagement of the petitioner from February, 2003 is admitted. The allegation of giving fictional breaks up-to 31.8.2007 has been specifically denied. It is alleged that the work was made available to the petitioner as per the requirement and availability of the funds from time to time as per mandays chart annexure-RII and that all the workers in the annexure R-III were senior to the petitioner who have since been regularized. It is further alleged that the disengagement of the workmen on the availability of the funds and the work was strictly in accordance with the policy of 'last come first go' and thus allegation of violation of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act has been specifically denied. Thus, relying upon the plea of reference of regularization of petitioner, cause of action as pleaded in the claim petition filed by petitioner is denied and the petition is sought to be dismissed.

5. No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner.

6. To prove her case, petitioner had examined herself as PW1 tendered/proved her affidavit Ex. PW1/ A under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC and closed evidence. On the other hand, repudiating the evidence led by petitioner, respondent had examined Shri V.S. Guleria, the then Executive Engineer, HPPWD (B&R) Division, Joginder Nagar as RW1, tendered Ex. RW1/A copy of letter dated 9th December, 2003, Ex. RW1/B regarding creation of PWD Division (B&R) Joginder Nagar in the year 2004, Ex. RW1/C mandays chart of petitioner, Ex. RW1/D year- wise working days of daily wage Beldar and closed evidence.

7. I have heard the Authorized Representative/counsel representing petitioner and ld. Dy. D.A. for respondent, gone through records of the case carefully.

8. From the contentions raised, following issues were framed on 08.9.2015 for determination:

1. Whether time to time termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent during the year December, 2002 to 31-08-2007 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged? . .OPP.

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

2862 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? . .OPR.

4. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged? . .OPR.

5. Whether the petition is bad on account of delay and laches on the part of the applicant as alleged? . .OPR.

Relief.

9. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing the aforesaid issues, my findings on the aforesaid issues are as follows:

Issue No.1 : Yes

Issue No.2 : Discussed

Issue No.3 : No

Issue No.4 : No

Issue No.5 : No

Relief : Petition is allowed per operative part of the Award.

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

ISSUES NO. 1 AND 2

10. Both these issues have been taken up together for discussion being interconnected which can be disposed of simultaneously without repetition of evidence.

11. Factum of petitioner having been appointed as daily waged beldar on muster roll by the respondent w.e.f. February, 2003 is not in dispute. It is the admitted case of petitioner that she had worked since February, 2003 but she had been deliberately given fictional breaks by respondent so that she could not complete 240 days to get benefits of Section 25-B of the Act. The plea of respondent, on the other hand remains that petitioner was still working but had been working intermittently as she of her own use to not come on her duty besides she willfully absented several times from it.

12. To appreciate the genuineness of the plea so raised by respondent, suffice would be to state here that bald assertion of the respondent cannot be accepted that petitioner willfully absented from her duties as there is nothing corresponding in evidence to show that any letter or intimation was sent to petitioner for her unauthorized absence from her duties as absence from duty is serious misconduct, it is projected to be case as if petitioner came of her own and worked at her whims. The plea of petitioner, on the other hand remains that fictional breaks were deliberately given to her and that several other persons junior to petitioner namely Smt. Geeta Devi, Dalip Singh, Goutam Singh and Anil Kumar and others have been regularized by respondent who were actually not given fictional breaks at any point of time.

13. Perusal of mandays chart Ex. RW1/C would reveal that in the year 2003 petitioner had worked for 158 days, 170 days in 2004, 169 days in 2005, 169 days in 2006, 224 days in 2007,2863 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 364 days in 2008, 311.5 days in 2009, 252 days in 2010, 291 days in 2011, 276 days in 2012, 338 days in 2013, 311 days in 2014 and 90 days in 2015. It can be noticed that in the several years petitioner has worked for less than 240 days, whereas for other remaining years she had worked for more than 240 days. Seniority list of regular labourers HPPWD (B&R) Division has also been relied upon by respondent which is Ex. RW1/D on record in which all the persons named above are shown to have joined in the years 2003 and 2004 except at serial nos.1 to 3 and 7,8 & 10 who had joined earlier to petitioner whereas petitioner had joined in 2003. Since respondent had not disputed to have engaged petitioner in February, 2003, she ought to have been regularized having continuously worked for about 5 years with requisite number of days required for regularization and on account of fictional break as stated above, which would show that other persons who had joined along-with her have been regularized but the petitioner has been deprived of her legitimate right for regularization till now. Thus, break in service being within a period of nine years from her termination was definitely a fictional break as in remaining years she had worked for more than 240 days. The act of the respondent in giving fictional break is manifestly arbitrary without any basis. Although respondent department ipso facto does not dislodge petitioner from claiming her seniority and continuity in service from her initial engagement but fictional breaks in no manner would affect or eclipse legitimate right of regularization in service of petitioner. However, petitioner has admitted in cross-examination that she had agricultural land and remained employed and as such it could not be stated with certainty that petitioner was not gainfully employed during the period of fictional breaks.

14. Stepping into the witness box as PW1, petitioner has sworn in detailed affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC stipulating therein that she had been engaged and disengaged between 2003 to 2007 by giving fictional break whereas the persons junior to petitioner have been continuously engaged by department for the whole year who had completed more than 240 days in a calendar year as they had been invariably issued muster roll for whole of month in these years. In cross- examination, petitioner has admitted that she has been regularly provided with more than 240 days of work after 2007 which means the dispute is only for the years 2003 to 2007 as stated in the affidavit. It needs to be noticed that other co- workers working with petitioner or say who were junior were given muster roll for full month so that they completed 240 days in a year. RW1 Shri V.S. Guleria has admitted in cross-examination that seniority list Ex. RW1/D of all the labourers who have been shown in the said seniority list were employed after the engagement of the petitioner except serial nos. 1 to 3 and 7,8 & 10. He has admitted that working of 240 days is to be established by petitioner to claim benefit of deemed service under Section 25-B of the Act. He has admitted that petitioner has been engaged in the year 2003 who had not been issued any appointment letter but denied that petitioner had been deliberately given breaks in the years from 2003 to 2007 but she could not plead so as no corresponding record has been produced by the respondent to establish that on absence of petitioner from her duty, any notice was issued for unauthorized absence and the version of RW1 that petitioner came and worked & go of her own from duty cannot be accepted which manifestly appear to be afterthought. Moreover, RW1 has admitted that as per record no notice was given to petitioner for her absence from duty at any point of time. Since absence from duty is serous misconduct, and there being nothing on record to show initiation of proceeding, plea set forth by respondent qua abandonment of job by petitioner intermittently merits rejection. As such, the plea of fictional break given to the petitioner from the year 2003 to 2007 gets substantiated not only from documentary evidence on record but from testimony on oath of RW1 as well. Although, petitioner being in employment at the time of passing of award, being given fictional breaks as stated above is duly established but petitioner cannot be deprived of her legitimate right to seek seniority as well as continuity in service from her date of joining along-with other persons working with him. Thus, petitioner could not have been discriminated arbitrarily who has certainly been discriminated as stated in foregoing paras. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is held that time to time termination of the services of the petitioner and giving 2864 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 fictional breaks in service by the respondent during 2003 to 2007 was certainly illegal and unjustified which is manifestly in contravention of provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of the Act but as the petitioner is still in employment with the respondent, she is to be given benefit of seniority and continuity in service except back wages in the circumstances of the case. Issues are accordingly decided in part in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

ISSUE NO. 3

15. On the plea of non-maintainability of the claim petition under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has failed to allege in reply in what manner petition is not maintainable. Otherwise also, from pleadings and evidence on record, no inference of claim petition being not maintainable could be raised against claimant/petitioner. As such, issue in hand is answered in negative against the respondent and in favour of petitioner.

ISSUE NO. 4

16. In the light of my findings on the issues no.1 and 2 in foregoing para, it is held that the Executive Engineer, HPPWD, National Highway Division, Joginder Nagar is not a necessary party to be impleaded in this case in claim petition as petitioner was initially appointed with respndoent only PW1 has admitted in cross-examination that petitioner was working with respondent although she earlier worked with Executive Engineer HPPWD National Highways. Thus, creation of separate HPWPD division vide office order Ex. RW1/D shall have no serious consequence on merits of case. Issue in hand is answered in negative in favour of petitioner and against respondent.

ISSUE NO.5

17. Ld. Dy. D.A. representing state respondent has contended that petition so filed was bad on account of delay and laches. It is evident from findings in foregoing paras that petitioner was given fictional breaks from 2003 to 2007 which was not within knowledge of petitioner. It seems that when workmen junior to petitioner had been regularized, she come to know about intermittent breaks. The matter was brought to notice of Conciliation Officer where it did not materialize and consequently Labour Commissioner made reference to this court. Ld. counsel for petitioner, on the other hand, has maintained that no prejudice had been caused to petitioner. Moreover, not a single question has been asked by ld. Dy. D.A. on delay to the petitioner. As such, delay which is not questioned stands explained as stated above. Otherwise also, plea of delay or limitation would not eclipse claim of petitioner in any manner. It is settled preposition of law that in case a dispute is referred to for determination, the Court will have to return a finding on merits and the delay in raising the dispute may be considered by the Court at the time of granting the final relief, as has been held by our own Hon'ble High Court in Bhatag Ram's case (2007 LHLJ 903). In Divisional Manager, HPFC & another vs. Garibu Ram, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 1160, the delay of more than 10 years was held to have not come in the way of the workman whose services were illegally terminated by holding that the provisions of Limitation Act is not applicable to industrial dispute but however, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, the principle of delay and laches have to be seen and applied. In Deepa Ram vs. State of H.P. and Ors., 2005 (1) Himachal Law Journal 248, there was a delay of 12 years. In Ramesh Chand vs. Union of India, CWP No. 812 of 2000, there was a delay of 9 years. In CWP No. 95 of 2000 titled as Divisional Manager vs. Mohinder Kumar, there was a delay of 14 years. In Naginder Kumar vs. HPSEB and anr. 2008 (1) SLJ (H.P.) 425, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. that the Labour Court cannot dismiss the claim on the ground of delay and laches once the same has been2865 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 referred by the State Government and the Labour Court is bound to decide the reference which was made by the State Government and same is required to be adjudicated upon the merits without touching the aspect of delay and laches. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. vs. Gopal Bhiva & Ors, AIR 1964 SC 752, has categorically held that as such of all those employees, who are entitled to take the benefit of Section 33-C (2) may not always be conscious of their rights and it may not be right to put the restriction of limitation in respect of claim which they may have to make under the provision and in absence of any provision for limitation, it may not be open to the Court to introduce the limitation on the ground of fairness and justice. In Ajayab Singh vs. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing- cum-Processing Society Limited and Another, (1999) 6 SCC 82, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:

"The provisions of Article 137 of Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the

proceeding under the ID Act. The relief under the ID Act cannot be denied merely on

the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be

proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical

defence. No reference to the Labour Court can be generally questioned on the ground of

delay alone".

18. No material has been placed on record by the respondents to establish that there was inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in raising the dispute in the instant case or that any prejudice had been caused to respondent. Accordingly, the petition as filed by the petitioner cannot be held to be hit by the vice of delays and laches as alleged by the respondent. Hence, this issue is decided against the respondent and is answered accordingly.

RELIEF

19. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, petitioner is held to be in continuous uninterrupted service with the respondent from the date of her initial engagement, the breaks given by the respondent being fictional in nature shall have no effect on the seniority and continuity of service of the petitioner and her seniority shall be reckoned from her initial date of engagement. Accordingly, claim of petitioner is hereby allowed in part and reference is accordingly answered in favour of petitioner. The petitioner shall thus be deemed to be in continuous service of respondent with all consequential benefits except back wages. She shall, however, be considered for regularization by respondent at the time when her juniors have been regularized as per policy governing daily wagers as framed by State Govt. and operative from time to time. The parties, however, shall bear their own costs.

20. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

21. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette.

22. File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.

day of May, 2016.

Announced in the open Court today this 25th

(K. K. Sharma) Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P.

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA (HP)

Ref. No. : 27/2015

Date of Institution : 13.01.2015

Date of decision : 25.05.2016

Shri Prakash Chand s/o Shri Kishan Chand, r/o V.P.O. Karsal, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. . . Petitioner.

Versus

. .Respondent.

Reference under section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. N.L. Kaundal, AR : Sh. Vijay Kaundal, Adv.

For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A.

AWARD

1. The following reference has been received from the appropriate Government for adjudication:

"Whether time to time termination of the services of Shri Prakash Chand, S/O Shri Kishan Chand, R/O V.P.O. Karsal, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. during January, 2001 to 31-08-2007 by the Executive Engineer, B&R Division H.P.P.W.D., Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employer?"

2. Brief facts as set up in the claim petition reveal that the services of petitioner were engaged by the B&R Department as a daily wager on muster roll basis w.e.f. January, 2001 who worked under the Assistant Engineer, HPPWD Sub Division, Joginder Nagar but no appointment order/letter was issued in his name by the respondent. Averments made in claim petition further stipulates that the latter used to engage petitioner's for 15 to 20 days every month instead of the full month and that fictional breaks for 10-15 days in each month were continued to be given by the respondent till 30.09.2007. Thereafter, as per the instructions issued by the Principal Secretary (PW) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh per letter dated 14.9.2007, his services were continuously engaged by the respondent. It is alleged that the respondent had given petitioner artificial breaks from the year 2001 to 30.09.2007. Not only this, the persons who were working with him (petitioner) or joined the service after him were not given any break by the respondent deliberately. At the time while giving artificial/fictional breaks, the principle of 'last come first go' was also not followed by the respondent and the persons junior to petitioner namely Shri Rajinder Singh and Sh. Sumer Singh and others worked with the respondent/department without any break and that the period of artificial breaks is required to2867 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 be counted as continuous service for the purpose of the regularization of petitioner's services. It is alleged that the persons junior to petitioner have been regularized by the respondent earlier to him contrary to the policy of the State. A similar case titled as Suresh Kumar vs. The Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Division Baijnath bearing reference No.23/2010 has already been decided in favour of the workman by this Court per Award dated 28.11.2011 and thus petitioner having completed eight years of continuous service on 31.12.2009 and 10 years of continuous service on 31.12.2011 was liable to be regularized as work charged beldar as per the policy framed/approved in Mool Raj Upadhaya's case i.e. w.e.f. 1st January, 2012 in the pay scale of Rs.4910-10680/- with all other perks and allowances. It is also contended that petitioner is still working with the respondent/department. The act and conduct of the respondent is also alleged to be unfair labour practice which also violates Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947, 'the Act' for short).

3. Respondent contested petition, filed separate reply inter-alia taken preliminary objections qua non-maintainability as no legal or fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed, the petition being hit by the vice of delay and laches and bad for not impleading the State of Himachal Pradesh and the Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, HPPWD, Joginder Nagar as parties to the petition. On merits, engagement of the services of the petitioner from January, 2001 is admitted. However, it has been pleaded that the petitioner was employed by the Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, HPPWD, Joginder Nagar and that respondent's office was created in the month of January, 2004 vide notification dated 9th December, 2003. The office started functioning w.e.f. 2nd January, 2004 and after the creation of his (respondent's) office, the petitioner and some other workmen were transferred to the newly created Division from the National Highway Division, Joginder Nagar. The claim of the petitioner prior to 01.1.2004 pertains to the office of the Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, Joginder Nagar, who is not a party to the case. It has been emphatically denied that if fictional breaks were given to the petitioner at any point of time rather the services of the petitioner were engaged as per the availability of the work and funds. As and when the services of the petitioner were engaged in accordance with his verbal requests from time to time, he was duly made aware regarding the availability of the work besides maintained that no continuous work for the entire month was provided to the petitioner who used to report for duty intermittently as per his convenience. The workmen whose names have been disclosed by the petitioner, worked in continuity and that their services have been regularized as per the seniority and policy of the State. It is further asserted that the services of the petitioner would be regularized as per the policy of the State besides denied to have indulged in any unfair labour practice and maintained that no provision of the Act has been violated. Accordingly, cause of action as pleaded in the claim petition filed by petitioner is denied and the petition is sought to be dismissed.

4. No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner.

5. To prove his case, petitioner had examined himself as PW1 tendered/proved his affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, Ex. PW1/B copy of letter dated 14.9.2007, Ex. PW1/C copy of letter dated 4.9.1986, Ex. PW1/D copy of office order dated 18.7.2014 and closed evidence. On the other hand, repudiating the evidence led by petitioner, respondent had examined Shri V.S. Guleria, the then Executive Engineer, HPPWD (B&R) Division Joginder Nagar as RW1 tendered Ex. RW1/A notification dated 9th December, 2003, Ex. RW1/B copy of letter dated 2.1.2004 regarding creation of PWD Division (B&R) Joginder Nagar in the year 2004, Ex. RW1/C mandays chart of petitioner, Ex. RW1/D year- wise working days of daily wage Beldar and closed the evidence.

6. I have heard the Authorized Representative/counsel representing petitioner and ld. Dy. D.A. for respondent, gone through records of the case carefully.

2868 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 7. From the contentions raised, following issues were framed on 03.07.2015 for determination:

1. Whether time to time termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent during January, 2001 to 31.08.2007 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged?

. .OPP.

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

3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? . .OPR.

4. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged? . .OPR.

5. Whether the claim petition is bad on account of delay and laches on part of the petitioner as alleged. If so, its effect? . .OPR.

Relief.

8. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing the aforesaid issues, my findings on the aforesaid issues are as follows:

Issue No.1 : Yes

Issue No.2 : Discussed Issue No.3 : No

Issue No.4 : No Issue No. 5 : No

Relief : Petition is allowed per operative part of the Award.

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

ISSUES NO. 1 AND 2

9. Both these issues have been taken up together for discussion being interconnected which can be disposed of simultaneously without repetition of evidence.

10. Factum of petitioner having been appointed as daily waged beldar on muster roll by the respondent w.e.f. January, 2001 is not in dispute. It is the admitted case of petitioner that petitioner had worked since January, 2001 but he had been deliberately given fictional breaks by respondent so that petitioner did not complete 240 days to get benefits of Section 25-B of the Act. The plea of respondent, on the other hand remains that petitioner was still working but had been working intermittently as he of his own used to not come on his duty besides he willfully absented several times from his duty. To appreciate the genuineness of the plea so raised by respondent, suffice would be to state here that bald assertion of the respondent that petitioner willfully absented from his duties is devoid of merit as there is nothing corresponding in evidence to show that any letter or intimation was sent to petitioner for his unauthorized absence from his duties. Rather, it is projected to be case as if petitioner came of his own for work and left the work of his own sweet will. The plea of petitioner, on the other hand remains that fictional breaks were given to him and that several persons junior to him namely Smt. Guddi Devi, Sh. Prithi Chand, Sh. Ravinder Kumar, Sh. Dalip Singh, Sh. Gautam2869 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 Ram, Sh. Bhawani Singh and Sh. Ram Dhan have been regularized by respondent and these persons were actually not given fictional breaks at any point of time.

11. A bare glance on mandays chart Ex. RW1/C would reveal that in the year 2001 petitioner had worked for 186 days, 168 days in the year 2002, 168 days in the year 2003, 171 days in the year 2004, 170 days in the year 2005, 152 days in the year 2006, 1999 days in the year 2007, 364 days in the year 2008, 359 days in the year 2009, 361 days in the year 2010, 361 days in the year 2011, 366 days in the year 2012, 365 days in the year 2013, 365 days in the year 2014 and 90 days in the year 2015. It can be noticed that till 2007 petitioner has worked for less than 240 days whereas for other remaining years he had worked for more than 240 days. It may be pertinent to state here that vide letter dated 14.9.2007 Ex. PW1/B direction has been given by government to provide muster roll to all labourers who have been engaged for 15/20 days or 30 days be provided muster roll for full month in certain situation but his instruction appears to be have been completely ignored by respondent department as claimant petitioner was engaged in 2001 much prior to year 2006 and had not completed 10 years who was to be issued muster roll for full month in relaxation of policy as special case. Thus, break in service being within a period of seven years from his termination was definitely a fictional break as in remaining years he had worked for more than 240 days. The act of the respondent in giving fictional break is manifestly arbitrary without any basis. Seniority list of regular labourers HPPWD (B&R) Division has also been relied upon by respondent which is Ex. RW1/D on record in which all the persons named above are shown to have joined in the years 2002, 2003 and 2004 except at serial nos. 3,6 & 10 who had joined earlier to petitioner as workman at serial no.7 joined in the year 1999 whereas petitioner had joined in January, 2001. Since respondent had not disputed to have engaged petitioner in January, 2001, he ought to have been regularized having continuously worked for about 7 years with requisite number of days required for regularization and there being no fictional break as stated above, which would show that other persons who had joined along- with him have been regularized but the petitioner has been deprived of his legitimate right for regularization till now. Although respondent department ipso facto does not dislodge petitioner from claiming his seniority and continuity in service from his initial engagement and thus fictional breaks in no manner would affect or eclipse him legitimate right of regularization in service.

12. Stepping into the witness box as PW1, petitioner has sworn detailed affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC stipulating therein that he had been engaged and disengaged between 2001 to 2007 by giving fictional break whereas the persons junior to her have been continuously engaged by department for the whole year who had completed more than 240 days in a calendar year. In cross- examination, he has admitted that he has been provided work more than 240 days of work after September, 2007 which means the dispute is only for the years 2001 to 2007 as stated in the affidavit. RW1 Shri V.S. Guleria has admitted in cross- examination that seniority list Ex. RW1/D of all the labourers shown in the said seniority list were employed after the engagement of the petitioner. He has admitted that working of 240 days is to be established by petitioner to claim benefit of deemed service under Section 25-B of the Act. He has admitted that petitioner has been engaged in the year 2001 who had not been issued any appointment letter. He has denied that petitioner had been deliberately given breaks in the years from 2001 to 2007 but he could not prove as no corresponding record has been produced by the respondent to establish that on absence of petitioner from his duty any notice was issued for unauthorized absence and the version of RW1 that he came and go of his own from duty cannot be accepted which manifestly appear to be afterthought. Moreover, RW1 has admitted that as per record no notice was given to petitioner for his absence from duty at any point of time. As such, the plea of fictional break given to the petitioner from the years 2001 to 2007 get substantiated not only from documentary evidence on record but from testimony on oath of RW1 as well.

2870 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 13. Although, petitioner being in employment at the time of passing of having fictional breaks as stated above is duly established yet he cannot be deprived of his legitimate right to seek seniority as well as continuity in service form his date of joining along-with other persons working with him besides petitioner could not have been discriminated arbitrarily between similarly situated workmen. No reason whatsoever has been assigned by respondent for not giving any fictional breaks to others which further shows that plea of non availability of work or the funds as the case may be was not correct stand of respondent made with the object to defeat the claim of petitioner. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is held that time to time termination of the services of the petitioner and giving fictional breaks in service by the respondent from 2001 to 2007 was certainly illegal and unjustified in contravention of provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of the Act but as the petitioner is still in employment with the respondent, he is to be given benefit of seniority and continuity in service except back wages particularly when he has admitted to have remained gainfully employed while working as an agriculturist. Issue in question is thus as stated above decided in part in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

ISSUE NO.3

14. On the plea of non-maintainability of the claim petition under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has contended that present claim petition is not maintainable as the petitioner had abandoned the job of his own and did not join his duty despite issuance of muster roll for the relevant period. From the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record as discussed in foregoing paras, no inference of claim petition being not maintainable could be raised instead the same is held to be maintainable. As such, the issue in hand is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

ISSUE NO.4

15. In the light of my findings on the issues no.1 and 2 in foregoing para, it is held that the Executive Engineer, HPPWD, National Highway Division, Joginder Nagar is not a necessary party to be impleaded in this case. Claim petition as petitioner was initially appointed with respndoent only PW1 has admitted in cross-examination that he was working with respondent although he earlier worked with Executive Engineer HPPWD National Highways. Thus, creation of separate HPWPD division vide office order Ex. RW1/D shall have no serious consequence on merits of case. Issue in hand is answered in negative in favour of petitioner and against respondent.

ISSUE NO.5

16. It is settled preposition of law that in case a dispute is referred to for determination, the Court will have to return a finding on merits and the delay in raising the dispute may be considered by the Court at the time of granting the final relief, as has been held by our own Hon'ble High Court in Bhatag Ram's case (2007 LHLJ 903). In Divisional Manager, HPFC & another vs. Garibu Ram, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 1160, the delay of more than 10 years was held to have not come in the way of the workman whose services were illegally terminated by holding that the provisions of Limitation Act is not applicable to industrial dispute but however, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, the principle of delay and laches have to be seen and applied. In Deepa Ram vs. State of H.P. and Ors., 2005 (1) Himachal Law Journal 248, there was a delay of 12 years. In Ramesh Chand vs. Union of India, CWP No. 812 of 2000, there was a delay of 9 years. In CWP No. 95 of 2000 titled as Divisional Manager vs. Mohinder Kumar, there was a delay of 14 years. In Naginder Kumar vs. HPSEB and anr. 2008 (1) SLJ (H.P.) 425, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of2871 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 H.P. that the Labour Court cannot dismiss the claim on the ground of delay and laches once the same has been referred by the State Government and the Labour Court is bound to decide the reference which was made by the State Government and same is required to be adjudicated upon the merits without touching the aspect of delay and laches. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. vs. Gopal Bhiva & Ors, AIR 1964 SC 752, has categorically held that as such of all those employees, who are entitled to take the benefit of Section 33-C (2) may not always be conscious of their rights and it may not be right to put the restriction of limitation in respect of claim which they may have to make under the provision and in absence of any provision for limitation, it may not be open to the Court to introduce the limitation on the ground of fairness and justice. In Ajayab Singh vs. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Limited and Another, (1999) 6 SCC 82, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:

"The provisions of Article 137 of Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the

proceeding under the ID Act. The relief under the ID Act cannot be denied merely on the

ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a

matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence.

No reference to the Labour Court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay

alone".

17. No material has been placed on record by the respondents to establish that there was inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in raising the dispute in the instant case or that any prejudice had been caused to respondent. Accordingly, the petition as filed by the petitioner cannot be held to be hit by the vice of delays and laches as alleged by the respondent. Hence, this issue is decided against the respondent and is answered accordingly.

RELIEF

18. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, it is held that the petitioner was in continuous uninterrupted service with the respondent from the date of his initial engagement and that the breaks given by the respondent being fictional in nature shall have no effect on the seniority and continuity of service of the petitioner and his seniority shall be reckoned from his initial date of engagement. Accordingly, claim of petition is hereby allowed and reference is accordingly answered in favour of petitioner. The petitioner shall thus be deemed to be in continuous service of respondent with all consequential benefits except back wages. He shall, however, be considered for regularization by respondent at the time when his juniors have been regularized as per policy governing daily wagers as framed by State Govt. and operative from time to time. The parties, however, shall bear their own costs.

19. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

20. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette.

21. File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.

day of May, 2016.

Announced in the open Court today this 25th

(K.K. Sharma) Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P.

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA (HP)

Ref. No. : 228/2015

Date of Institution : 27.5.2015

Date of decision : 25.05.2016

Shri Malkeet Khan s/o Shri Azad Khan, r/o Village Biru, P.O. Ladhbharol, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

The Executive Engineer, (B&R) Division, H.P.P.W.D. Joginder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. . . Respondent.

Reference under section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. Suresh Kumar Sharma, Adv.

For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A.

AWARD

1. The following reference has been received from the appropriate Government for adjudication:

"Whether time to time termination of the services of Shri Malkeet Khan S/O Shri Azad Khan, R/O Village Biru, P.O. Ladhbharol, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. during June, 1999 to 31-08-2007 by the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D., (B&R) Division Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employer?"

2. On receipt of reference from appropriate government, notices were issued to the parties in pursuance to which claimant/petitioner has filed his statement of claim.

3. Brief facts as set up in the claim petition reveal that petitioner was engaged as daily rated beldar by respondent w.e.f. 07.6.1999 in its National Highway Division, Joginder Nagar and later he (petitioner) worked with the respondent in the newly created HPPWD Division in 2004 but he was given fictional breaks from time to time from his initial engagement till 31.8.2007. It is alleged that he was issued muster rolls for 15 days in a month, though the work was available for the entire month but, his juniors namely Dalip Singh, Gautam Singh, Geeta Devi, Pradeep Kumar, Kishhori Lal, Sanjay Kumar, Bhag Mal, Nihal Chand, Anil Kumar and Chanchal. were not given such breaks and they were allowed to complete 240 days in each calendar year and the above named juniors have now been regularized. It is alleged that the respondent has stopped giving fictional breaks to the petitioner from 01.9.2007 and thereafter, the petitioner has completed 240 days in each calendar year. Therefore, there has been violation of the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity). This Court/Tribunal has already2873 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 decided a similar matter i.e. Reference No.110/2006 titled as General Secretary vs. Executive Engineer, HPPWD per Award dated 02.11.2010 in favour of the workmen. The petitioner thus has filed a demand notice with the labour department but matter could not be reconciled as the petitioner has prayed for giving him the benefit of seniority, regularization and back wages etc. 3. Respondent contested petition, filed separate reply inter-alia taken preliminary objections of maintainability, petition being bad for non- joinder of necessary parties and claim petition being bad on account of delay and laches. On merits, engagement of the petitioner from July, 1999 is admitted. The allegation of giving fictional breaks up-to 31.8.2007 has been specifically denied. It is alleged that the work was made available to the petitioner as per the requirement and availability of the funds from time to time as per mandays chart annexure-RII and R-III and that all the workers in the annexure R-III were senior to the petitioner who have since been regularized. It is further alleged that the disengagement of the workmen on the availability of the funds and the work was strictly in accordance with the policy of 'last come first go' and thus allegation of violation of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act has been specifically denied. Thus, relying upon the plea of reference of regularization of petitioner, cause of action as pleaded in the claim petition filed by petitioner is denied and the petition is sought to be dismissed.

5. No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner.

6. To prove his case, petitioner had examined himself as PW1 tendered/proved his affidavit Ex. PW1/ A under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC and closed evidence. On the other hand, repudiating the evidence led by petitioner, respondent had examined Shri V.S. Guleria, the then Executive Engineer, HPPWD (B&R) Division, Joginder Nagar as RW1, tendered Ex. RW1/A copy of letter dated 9th December, 2003, Ex. RW1/B regarding creation of PWD Division (B&R) Joginder Nagar in the year 2004, Ex. RW1/C mandays chart of petitioner, Ex. RW1/D year- wise working days of daily wage Beldar and closed evidence.

7. I have heard the Authorized Representative/counsel representing petitioner and ld. Dy. D.A. for respondent, gone through records of the case carefully.

8. From the contentions raised, following issues were framed on 31.08.2015 for determination:

1. Whether time to time termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent during the year June, 1999 to 31-08-2007 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged?

. .OPP.

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

3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? . .OPR.

4. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged? . .OPR.

5. Whether the petition is bad on account of delay and laches on the part of the applicant as alleged? . .OPR.

Relief.

2874 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 9. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing the aforesaid issues, my findings on the aforesaid issues are as follows:

Issue No.1 : Yes

Issue No.2 : Discussed Issue No.3 : No

Issue No.4 : No Issue No.5 : No

Relief : Petition is allowed per operative part of the Award.

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

ISSUES NO. 1 AND 2

10. Both these issues have been taken up together for discussion being interconnected which can be disposed of simultaneously without repetition of evidence.

11. Factum of petitioner having been appointed as daily waged beldar on muster roll by the respondent w.e.f. July, 1999 is not in dispute. It is the admitted case of petitioner that he had worked since July, 1999 but he had been deliberately given fictional breaks by respondent so that he could not complete 240 days to get benefits of Section 25-B of the Act. The plea of respondent, on the other hand remains that petitioner was still working but had been working intermittently as he of his own use to not come on his duty besides he willfully absented several times from it.

12. To appreciate the genuineness of the plea so raised by respondent, suffice would be to state here that bald assertion of the respondent cannot be accepted that petitioner willfully absented from his duties as there is nothing corresponding in evidence to show that any letter or intimation was sent to petitioner for his unauthorized absence from his duties as absence from duty is serious misconduct, it is projected to be case as if petitioner came of his own and worked at his whims. The plea of petitioner, on the other hand remains that fictional breaks were deliberately given to him and that several other persons junior to petitioner namely Smt. Geeta Devi, Dalip Singh, Goutam Singh and Anil Kumar and others have been regularized by respondent who were actually not given fictional breaks at any point of time.

13. Perusal of mandays chart Ex. RW1/C would reveal that in the year 1999 petitioner had worked for 95 days, 187 days in 2000, 63 days in 2001, 124 days in 2002, 141 days in 2003, 135 days in 2004, 159 days in 2005, 117 days in 2006, 149 days in 2007, 248 days in 2008, 212.5 days in 2009, 312 days in 2010, 288 days in 2011, 316 days in 2012, 280 days in 2013, 302 days in 2014 and 85 days in 2015. It can be noticed that in the several years petitioner has worked for less than 240 days, whereas for other remaining years he had worked for more than 240 days. Seniority list of regular labourers HPPWD (B&R) Division has also been relied upon by respondent which is Ex. RW1/D on record in which all the persons named above are shown to have joined in the years 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004 except at serial no.6 who had joined earlier to petitioner whereas petitioner had joined in 1999. Since respondent had not disputed to have engaged petitioner in July, 1999, he ought to have been regularized having continuously worked for about 8 years with requisite number of days required for regularization and on account of fictional break as stated above, which would show that other persons who had joined along-with him have been regularized but the petitioner has been deprived of his legitimate right for regularization till now. Thus, break in service being within a period of nine years from his termination was definitely a fictional break as in remaining years he2875 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 had worked for more than 240 days. The act of the respondent in giving fictional break is manifestly arbitrary without any basis. Although respondent department ipso facto does not dislodge petitioner from claiming his seniority and continuity in service from his initial engagement but fictional breaks in no manner would affect or eclipse legitimate right of regularization in service of petitioner. However, petitioner has admitted in cross- examination that he had agricultural land and remained employed and as such it could not be stated with certainty that petitioner was not gainfully employed during the period of fictional breaks.

14. Stepping into the witness box as PW1, petitioner has sworn in detailed affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC stipulating therein that he had been engaged and disengaged between 1999 to 2007 by giving fictional break whereas the persons junior to petitioner have been continuously engaged by department for the whole year who had completed more than 240 days in a calendar year as they had been invariably issued muster roll for whole of month in these years. In cross- examination, petitioner has admitted that he has been regularly provided with more than 240 days of work after 2007 which means the dispute is only for the years 1999 to 2007 as stated in the affidavit. It needs to be noticed that other co-workers working with petitioner or say who were junior were given muster roll for full month so that they completed 240 days in a year. RW1 Shri V.S. Guleria has admitted in cross-examination that seniority list Ex. RW1/D of all the labourers who have been shown in the said seniority list were employed after the engagement of the petitioner except serial no.6. He has admitted that working of 240 days is to be established by petitioner to claim benefit of deemed service under Section 25-B of the Act. He has admitted that petitioner has been engaged in the year 1999 who had not been issued any appointment letter but denied that petitioner had been deliberately given breaks in the years from 1999 to 2007 but he could not plead so as no corresponding record has been produced by the respondent to establish that on absence of petitioner from his duty, any notice was issued for unauthorized absence and the version of RW1 that petitioner came and worked & go of his own from duty cannot be accepted which manifestly appear to be afterthought. Moreover, RW1 has admitted that as per record no notice was given to petitioner for his absence from duty at any point of time. Since absence from duty is serous misconduct, and there being nothing on record to show initiation of proceeding, plea set forth by respondent qua abandonment of job by petitioner intermittently merits rejection. As such, the plea of fictional break given to the petitioner from the year 1999 to 2007 gets substantiated not only from documentary evidence on record but from testimony on oath of RW1 as well. Although, petitioner being in employment at the time of passing of award, being given fictional breaks as stated above is duly established but petitioner cannot be deprived of his legitimate right to seek seniority as well as continuity in service from his date of joining along- with other persons working with him. Thus, petitioner could not have been discriminated arbitrarily who has certainly been discriminated as stated in foregoing paras. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is held that time to time termination of the services of the petitioner and giving fictional breaks in service by the respondent during 1999 to 2007 was certainly illegal and unjustified which is manifestly in contravention of provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of the Act but as the petitioner is still in employment with the respondent, he is to be given benefit of seniority and continuity in service except back wages in the circumstances of the case. Issues are accordingly decided in part in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

ISSUE NO.3

15. On the plea of non-maintainability of the claim petition under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has failed to allege in reply in what manner petition is not maintainable. Otherwise also, from pleadings and evidence on record, no inference of claim petition being not maintainable could be raised against claimant/petitioner. As such, issue in hand is answered in negative against the respondent and in favour of petitioner.

16. In the light of my findings on the issues no.1 and 2 in foregoing para, it is held that the Executive Engineer, HPPWD, National Highway Division, Joginder Nagar is not a necessary party to be impleaded in this case in claim petition as petitioner was initially appointed with respndoent only PW1 has admitted in cross-examination that petitioner was working with respondent although he earlier worked with Executive Engineer HPPWD National Highways. Thus, creation of separate HPWPD division vide office order Ex. RW1/D shall have no serious consequence on merits of case. Issue in hand is answered in negative in favour of petitioner and against respondent.

ISSUE NO.5

17. Ld. Dy. D.A. representing state respondent has contended that petition so filed was bad on account of delay and laches. It is evident from findings in foregoing paras that petitioner was given fictional breaks from 1999 to 2007 which was not within knowledge of petitioner. It seems that when workmen junior to petitioner had been regularized, he come to know about intermittent breaks. The matter was brought to notice of Conciliation Officer where it did not materialize and consequently Labour Commissioner made reference to this court. Ld. counsel for petitioner, on the other hand, has maintained that no prejudice had been caused to petitioner. Moreover, not a single question has been asked by ld. Dy. D.A. on delay to the petitioner. As such, delay which is not questioned stands explained as stated above. Otherwise also, plea of delay or limitation would not eclipse claim of petitioner in any manner. It is settled preposition of law that in case a dispute is referred to for determination, the Court will have to return a finding on merits and the delay in raising the dispute may be considered by the Court at the time of granting the final relief, as has been held by our own Hon'ble High Court in Bhatag Ram's case (2007 LHLJ 903). In Divisional Manager, HPFC & another vs. Garibu Ram, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 1160, the delay of more than 10 years was held to have not come in the way of the workman whose services were illegally terminated by holding that the provisions of Limitation Act is not applicable to industrial dispute but however, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, the principle of delay and laches have to be seen and applied. In Deepa Ram vs. State of H.P. and Ors., 2005 (1) Himachal Law Journal 248, there was a delay of 12 years. In Ramesh Chand vs. Union of India, CWP No. 812 of 2000, there was a delay of 9 years. In CWP No. 95 of 2000 titled as Divisional Manager vs. Mohinder Kumar, there was a delay of 14 years. In Naginder Kumar vs. HPSEB and anr. 2008 (1) SLJ (H.P.) 425, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. that the Labour Court cannot dismiss the claim on the ground of delay and laches once the same has been referred by the State Government and the Labour Court is bound to decide the reference which was made by the State Government and same is required to be adjudicated upon the merits without touching the aspect of delay and laches. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. vs. Gopal Bhiva & Ors, AIR 1964 SC 752, has categorically held that as such of all those employees, who are entitled to take the benefit of Section 33-C (2) may not always be conscious of their rights and it may not be right to put the restriction of limitation in respect of claim which they may have to make under the provision and in absence of any provision for limitation, it may not be open to the Court to introduce the limitation on the ground of fairness and justice. In Ajayab Singh vs. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing- cum-Processing Society Limited and Another, (1999) 6 SCC 82, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:

"The provisions of Article 137 of Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the

proceeding under the ID Act. The relief under the ID Act cannot be denied merely on

the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be

proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical

राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 defence. No reference to the Labour Court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone".

18. No material has been placed on record by the respondents to establish that there was inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in raising the dispute in the instant case or that any prejudice had been caused to respondent. Accordingly, the petition as filed by the petitioner cannot be held to be hit by the vice of delays and laches as alleged by the respondent. Hence, this issue is decided against the respondent and is answered accordingly.

RELIEF

19. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, petitioner is held to be in continuous uninterrupted service with the respondent from the date of his initial engagement, the breaks given by the respondent being fictional in nature shall have no effect on the seniority and continuity of service of the petitioner and his seniority shall be reckoned from his initial date of engagement. Accordingly, claim of petitioner is hereby allowed in part and reference is accordingly answered in favour of petitioner. The petitioner shall thus be deemed to be in continuous service of respondent with all consequential benefits except back wages. He shall, however, be considered for regularization by respondent at the time when his juniors have been regularized as per policy governing daily wagers as framed by State Govt. and operative from time to time. The parties, however, shall bear their own costs.

20. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

21. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette.

22. File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.

day of May, 2016.

Announced in the open Court today this 25th

(K. K. Sharma)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P.

___________

IN THE COURT OF K.K. SHARMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT-CUM-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA (HP)

Ref. No. : 233/2015

Date of Institution : 09.6.2015

Date of decision : 25.05.2016

Shri Nupa Ram s/o Shri Bhikham Ram, r/o Village Jhulagan, P.O. Khadder, Tehsil Ladhbharol, District Mandi, H.P. . . Petitioner.

Versus

2878 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 The Executive Engineer, (B&R) Division, H.P.P.W.D. Joginder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. . . Respondent.

Reference under section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. Suresh Kumar Sharma, Adv.

For the Respondent : Sh. Sanjeev Singh Rana, Dy. D.A.

AWARD

1. The following reference has been received from the appropriate Government for adjudication:

"Whether time to time termination of the services of Shri Nupa Ram S/O Shri Bhikham Ram, R/O Village Jhulagan, P.O. Khadder, Tehsil Ladhbharol, District Mandi, H.P. during July, 2002 to 31-08-2007 by the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D., (B&R) Division Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employer?"

2. On receipt of reference from appropriate government, notices were issued to the parties in pursuance to which claimant/petitioner has filed his statement of claim.

3. Brief facts as set up in the claim petition reveal that petitioner was engaged as daily rated beldar by respondent w.e.f. 01.02.2002 in its National Highway Division, Joginder Nagar and later he (petitioner) worked with the respondent in the newly created HPPWD Division in 2004 but he was given fictional breaks from time to time from his initial engagement till 31.8.2007. It is alleged that he was issued muster rolls for 15 days in a month, though the work was available for the entire month but, his juniors namely Dalip Singh, Gautam Singh, Geeta Devi, Pradeep Kumar, Kishhori Lal, Sanjay Kumar, Bhag Mal, Nihal Chand, Anil Kumar and Chanchal. were not given such breaks and they were allowed to complete 240 days in each calendar year and the above named juniors have now been regularized. It is alleged that the respondent has stopped giving fictional breaks to the petitioner from 01.9.2007 and thereafter, the petitioner has completed 240 days in each calendar year. Therefore, there has been violation of the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity). This Court/Tribunal has already decided a similar matter i.e. Reference No.110/2006 titled as General Secretary vs. Executive Engineer, HPPWD per Award dated 02.11.2010 in favour of the workmen. The petitioner thus has filed a demand notice with the labour department but matter could not be reconciled as the petitioner has prayed for giving him the benefit of seniority, regularization and back wages etc.

4. Respondent contested petition, filed separate reply inter-alia taken preliminary objections of maintainability, petition being bad for non- joinder of necessary parties and claim petition being bad on account of delay and laches. On merits, engagement of the petitioner from July, 2002 is admitted. The allegation of giving fictional breaks up-to 31.8.2007 has been specifically denied. It is alleged that the work was made available to the petitioner as per the requirement and availability of the funds from time to time as per mandays chart annexure-RII and R-III and that all the workers in the annexure R-III were senior to the petitioner who have since been regularized. It is further alleged that the disengagement of the workmen on the2879 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 availability of the funds and the work was strictly in accordance with the policy of 'last come first go' and thus allegation of violation of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act has been specifically denied. Thus, relying upon the plea of reference of regularization of petitioner, cause of action as pleaded in the claim petition filed by petitioner is denied and the petition is sought to be dismissed.

5. The petitioner filed rejoinder, reiterated his stand as maintained in the claim petition.

6. To prove his case, petitioner had examined himself as PW1 tendered/proved his affidavit Ex. PW1/ A under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC and closed evidence. On the other hand, repudiating the evidence led by petitioner, respondent had examined Shri V.S. Guleria, the then Executive Engineer, HPPWD (B&R) Division, Joginder Nagar as RW1, tendered Ex. RW1/A copy of letter dated 9th December, 2003, Ex. RW1/B regarding creation of PWD Division (B&R) Joginder Nagar in the year 2004, Ex. RW1/C mandays chart of petitioner, Ex. RW1/D year- wise working days of daily wage Beldar and closed evidence.

7. I have heard the Authorized Representative/counsel representing petitioner and ld. Dy. D.A. for respondent, gone through records of the case carefully.

8. From the contentions raised, following issues were framed on 07.10.2015 for determination:

1. Whether time to time termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent during the year July, 2002 to 31-08-2007 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged?

. .OPP.

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

3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? . .OPR.

4. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged? . .OPR.

5. Whether the petition is bad on account of delay and laches on the part of the applicant as alleged? . .OPR.

Relief.

9. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing the aforesaid issues, my findings on the aforesaid issues are as follows:

Issue No.1 : Yes

Issue No.2 : Discussed Issue No.3 : No

Issue No.4 : No Issue No.5 : No

Relief : Petition is allowed per operative part of the Award.

ISSUES NO. 1 AND 2

10. Both these issues have been taken up together for discussion being interconnected which can be disposed of simultaneously without repetition of evidence.

11. Factum of petitioner having been appointed as daily waged beldar on muster roll by the respondent w.e.f. July, 2002 is not in dispute. It is the admitted case of petitioner that he had worked since July, 2002 but he had been deliberately given fictional breaks by respondent so that he could not complete 240 days to get benefits of Section 25-B of the Act. The plea of respondent, on the other hand remains that petitioner was still working but had been working intermittently as he of his own use to not come on his duty besides he willfully absented several times from it.

12. To appreciate the genuineness of the plea so raised by respondent, suffice would be to state here that bald assertion of the respondent cannot be accepted that petitioner willfully absented from his duties as there is nothing corresponding in evidence to show that any letter or intimation was sent to petitioner for his unauthorized absence from his duties as absence from duty is serious misconduct, it is projected to be case as if petitioner came of his own and worked at his whims. The plea of petitioner, on the other hand remains that fictional breaks were deliberately given to him and that several other persons junior to petitioner namely Smt. Geeta Devi, Dalip Singh, Goutam Singh and Anil Kumar and others have been regularized by respondent who were actually not given fictional breaks at any point of time.

13. Perusal of mandays chart Ex. RW1/C would reveal that in the year 2002 petitioner had worked for 111 days, 136 days in 2003, 164 days in 2004, 170 days in 2005, 157 days in 2006, 194 days in 2007, 364 days in 2008, 360 days in 2009, 358 days in 2010, 352 days in 2011, 345 days in 2012, 343 days in 2013, 337 days in 2014 and 90 days in 2015. It can be noticed that in the several years petitioner has worked for less than 240 days, whereas for other remaining years he had worked for more than 240 days. Seniority list of regular labourers HPPWD (B&R) Division has also been relied upon by respondent which is Ex. RW1/D on record in which all the persons named above are shown to have joined in the years 2002, 2003 and 2004 except at serial nos.3,6,7 & 10 who had joined earlier to petitioner whereas petitioner had joined in 2002. Since respondent had not disputed to have engaged petitioner in July, 2002, he ought to have been regularized having continuously worked for about 6 years with requisite number of days required for regularization and on account of fictional break as stated above, which would show that other persons who had joined along-with him have been regularized but the petitioner has been deprived of his legitimate right for regularization till now. Thus, break in service being within a period of nine years from his termination was definitely a fictional break as in remaining years he had worked for more than 240 days. The act of the respondent in giving fictional break is manifestly arbitrary without any basis. Although respondent department ipso facto does not dislodge petitioner from claiming his seniority and continuity in service from his initial engagement but fictional breaks in no manner would affect or eclipse legitimate right of regularization in service of petitioner. However, petitioner has admitted in cross-examination that he had agricultural land and remained employed and as such it could not be stated with certainty that petitioner was not gainfully employed during the period of fictional breaks.

14. Stepping into the witness box as PW1, petitioner has sworn in detailed affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC stipulating therein that he had been engaged and disengaged between 2002 to 2007 by giving fictional break whereas the persons junior to petitioner have been continuously2881 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 engaged by department for the whole year who had completed more than 240 days in a calendar year as they had been invariably issued muster roll for whole of month in these years. In cross- examination, petitioner has admitted that he has been regularly provided with more than 240 days of work after 2007 which means the dispute is only for the years 2002 to 2007 as stated in the affidavit. It needs to be noticed that other co-workers working with petitioner or say who were junior were given muster roll for full month so that they completed 240 days in a year. RW1 Shri V.S. Guleria has admitted in cross-examination that seniority list Ex. RW1/D of all the labourers who have been shown in the said seniority list were employed after the engagement of the petitioner except serial nos.3,6,7 & 10. He has admitted that working of 240 days is to be established by petitioner to claim benefit of deemed service under Section 25- B of the Act. He has admitted that petitioner has been engaged in the year 2002 who had not been issued any appointment letter but denied that petitioner had been deliberately given breaks in the years from 2002 to 2007 but he could not plead so as no corresponding record has been produced by the respondent to establish that on absence of petitioner from his duty, any notice was issued for unauthorized absence and the version of RW1 that petitioner came and worked & go of his own from duty cannot be accepted which manifestly appear to be afterthought. Moreover, RW1 has admitted that as per record no notice was given to petitioner for his absence from duty at any point of time. Since absence from duty is serous misconduct, and there being nothing on record to show initiation of proceeding, plea set forth by respondent qua abandonment of job by petitioner intermittently merits rejection. As such, the plea of fictional break given to the petitioner from the year 2002 to 2007 gets substantiated not only from documentary evidence on record but from testimony on oath of RW1 as well. Although, petitioner being in employment at the time of passing of award, being given fictional breaks as stated above is duly established but petitioner cannot be deprived of his legitimate right to seek seniority as well as continuity in service from his date of joining along-with other persons working with him. Thus, petitioner could not have been discriminated arbitrarily who has certainly been discriminated as stated in foregoing paras. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is held that time to time termination of the services of the petitioner and giving fictional breaks in service by the respondent during 2002 to 2007 was certainly illegal and unjustified which is manifestly in contravention of provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of the Act but as the petitioner is still in employment with the respondent, he is to be given benefit of seniority and continuity in service except back wages in the circumstances of the case. Issues are accordingly decided in part in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

ISSUE NO.3

15. On the plea of non-maintainability of the claim petition under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has failed to allege in reply in what manner petition is not maintainable. Otherwise also, from pleadings and evidence on record, no inference of claim petition being not maintainable could be raised against claimant/petitioner. As such, issue in hand is answered in negative against the respondent and in favour of petitioner.

ISSUE NO.4

16. In the light of my findings on the issues no.1 and 2 in foregoing para, it is held that the Executive Engineer, HPPWD, National Highway Division, Joginder Nagar is not a necessary party to be impleaded in this case in claim petition as petitioner was initially appointed with respndoent only PW1 has admitted in cross-examination that petitioner was working with respondent although he earlier worked with Executive Engineer HPPWD National Highways. Thus, creation of separate HPWPD division vide office order Ex. RW1/D shall have no serious consequence on merits of case. Issue in hand is answered in negative in favour of petitioner and against respondent.

17. Ld. Dy. D.A. representing state respondent has contended that petition so filed was bad on account of delay and laches. It is evident from findings in foregoing paras that petitioner was given fictional breaks from 2002 to 2007 which was not within knowledge of petitioner. It seems that when workmen junior to petitioner had been regularized, he come to know about intermittent breaks. The matter was brought to notice of Conciliation Officer where it did not materialize and consequently Labour Commissioner made reference to this court. Ld. counsel for petitioner, on the other hand, has maintained that no prejudice had been caused to petitioner. Moreover, not a single question has been asked by ld. Dy. D.A. on delay to the petitioner. As such, delay which is not questioned stands explained as stated above. Otherwise also, plea of delay or limitation would not eclipse claim of petitioner in any manner. It is settled preposition of law that in case a dispute is referred to for determination, the Court will have to return a finding on merits and the delay in raising the dispute may be considered by the Court at the time of granting the final relief, as has been held by our own Hon'ble High Court in Bhatag Ram's case (2007 LHLJ 903). In Divisional Manager, HPFC & another vs. Garibu Ram, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 1160, the delay of more than 10 years was held to have not come in the way of the workman whose services were illegally terminated by holding that the provisions of Limitation Act is not applicable to industrial dispute but however, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, the principle of delay and laches have to be seen and applied. In Deepa Ram vs. State of H.P. and Ors., 2005 (1) Himachal Law Journal 248, there was a delay of 12 years. In Ramesh Chand vs. Union of India, CWP No. 812 of 2000, there was a delay of 9 years. In CWP No. 95 of 2000 titled as Divisional Manager vs. Mohinder Kumar, there was a delay of 14 years. In Naginder Kumar vs. HPSEB and anr. 2008 (1) SLJ (H.P.) 425, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. that the Labour Court cannot dismiss the claim on the ground of delay and laches once the same has been referred by the State Government and the Labour Court is bound to decide the reference which was made by the State Government and same is required to be adjudicated upon the merits without touching the aspect of delay and laches. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. vs. Gopal Bhiva & Ors, AIR 1964 SC 752, has categorically held that as such of all those employees, who are entitled to take the benefit of Section 33-C (2) may not always be conscious of their rights and it may not be right to put the restriction of limitation in respect of claim which they may have to make under the provision and in absence of any provision for limitation, it may not be open to the Court to introduce the limitation on the ground of fairness and justice. In Ajayab Singh vs. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing- cum-Processing Society Limited and Another, (1999) 6 SCC 82, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:

"The provisions of Article 137 of Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the

proceeding under the ID Act. The relief under the ID Act cannot be denied merely on

the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be

proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical

defence. No reference to the Labour Court can be generally questioned on the ground of

delay alone".

18. No material has been placed on record by the respondents to establish that there was inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in raising the dispute in the instant case or that any prejudice had been caused to respondent. Accordingly, the petition as filed by the petitioner cannot be held to be hit by the vice of delays and laches as alleged by the respondent. Hence, this issue is decided against the respondent and is answered accordingly.

RELIEF

19. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, petitioner is held to be in continuous uninterrupted service with the respondent from the date of his initial engagement, the breaks given2883 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 by the respondent being fictional in nature shall have no effect on the seniority and continuity of service of the petitioner and his seniority shall be reckoned from his initial date of engagement. Accordingly, claim of petitioner is hereby allowed in part and reference is accordingly answered in favour of petitioner. The petitioner shall thus be deemed to be in continuous service of respondent with all consequential benefits except back wages. He shall, however, be considered for regularization by respondent at the time when his juniors have been regularized as per policy governing daily wagers as framed by State Govt. and operative from time to time. The parties, however, shall bear their own costs.

20. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

21. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette.

22. File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.

day of May, 2016.

Announced in the open Court today this 25th

(K. K. Sharma) Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P.

___________

FORESTS DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-171002, 11th July, 2016

No. FFE-B-F (1)1/2010-V-II.—In partial modification of this department Notification No. FFE-F(14)72/2005-I dated 17-03-2007, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to re-constitute the State Level Bamboo Steering Committee (SLBSC) as per operational guidelines of Centrally Sponsored Scheme under National Agro-forestry and Bamboo Mission. The SLBSC shall comprise the following:—

Official Members:-

1. ACS/Pr.Secy/Secretary (Forests) GoHP Chairman 2. ACS/Pr.Secy/Secy(Agriculture) GoHP Member 3. ACS/Pr.Secy/Secy(Horticulture) GoHP Member 4. ACS/Pr.Secy/Secy(RD&PR) GoHP Member 5. Pr. Chief Conservator of Forests(HoFF) Member 6. Addl. Pr.CCF(R&T) Sundernager

Member 7. Addl. Pr.CCF(Finance) Member 8. Dean, College of Forestry,UHF Nauni, Solan Member 9. CCF/CF (Finance) Member Secretary2884 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 Non- Official Members 2 NGOs

(Special Invitees) The State Level Bamboo Steering Committee (SLBSC) shall be responsible for approving the Annual Action Plan and ensuring effective implementation & monitoring of the scheme.

The committee will meet once every year to provide overall guidance monitor & review of the scheme.

By order, Sd/- Principal Secretary (Forests).

_________

मत्स्य विभाग

अधिसूचना

शिमला-2, 1 जुलाई, 2016

संख्याः फिश-ए (3)-1/2016.-हिमाचल प्रदेश के राज्यपाल, भारत के संविधान के अनुच्छेद 309 के परन्तुक द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, हिमाचल प्रदेश लोक सेवा आयोग केे परामर्श से, इस विभाग की अधिसूचना संख्याः फिश-ए (3)-15/2001, तारीख 23/12/2009 द्वारा अधिसूचित, हिमाचल प्रदेश मत्स्यपालन विभाग में फार्म सहायक, वर्ग-III (अराजपत्रित), भर्ती और प्रोन्नति नियम, 2009 का और संशोधन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित नियम बनाते है, अर्थात्‌  1. संक्षिप्त नाम और प्रारम्भ.-(i) इन नियमों का संक्षिप्त नाम हिमाचल प्रदेश मत्स्यपालन विभाग, फार्म सहायक, वर्ग-III (अराजपत्रित) भर्ती और प्रोन्नति (द्वितीय संशोधन) नियम, 2016 है।

(ii) ये नियम राजपत्र/ई गजट, हिमाचल प्रदेश में प्रकाशित किए जाने की तारीख से प्रवृत्त होंगे। 2. उपाबन्ध ''क'' का संशोधन.--हिमाचल प्रदेश मत्स्यपालन विभाग, फार्म सहायक, वर्ग-III (अराजपत्रित) भर्ती और प्रोन्नति नियम, 2009 (जिन्हें इसमें इसके पश्चात्‌्‌ उक्त नियम कहा गया है) के उपाबन्ध ''क'' में,-

(क) स्तम्भ संख्या 2 के सामने विद्यमान उपाबन्ध के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित रखा जाएगा, अर्थात्‌ः- ''14 (चौदह)'';

(ख) स्तम्भ संख्याः 15-क (VII) (ग), (घ) और (ङ) के सामने विद्यमान उपबन्धों के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित रखा जाएगा, अर्थातः-

''(ग) संविदा पर नियुक्त व्यक्ति, एक मास की सेवा पूरी करने के पश्चात्‌ एक दिन के आकस्मिक अवकाश का हकदार होगा। तथापि संविदा पर नियुक्त कर्मचारी 135 दिन के प्रसूति अवकाश, दस दिन के चिकित्सा अवकाश और पांच दिन के विशेेष अवकाश के लिए भी हकदार होगा/होगी। संविदा पर नियुक्त महिला कर्मचारी पूरी सेवा के दौरान, गर्भपात हो जाने सहित गर्भपात कराने की दशा में, प्राधिकृत सरकारी चिकित्सा अधिकारी द्वारा जारी चिकित्सा प्रमाण पत्र प्रस्तुत करने पर 45 दिन से अनधिक प्रसूति अवकाश (जीवित बच्चों की संख्या का विचार किए बिना) के लिए भी हकदार होगी। वह चिकित्सा प्रतिपूर्ति और एल0टी0सी0, आदि के लिए हकदार नहीं होगा/होगी। संविदा पर नियुक्त व्यक्ति को उपरोक्त के सिवाय किसी प्रकार का कोई अवकाश अनुज्ञात नहीं होगा :

परन्तु अनुपभुक्त आकस्मिक अवकाश, चिकित्सा अवकाश और विशेष अवकाश एक कलैण्डर वर्ष तक संचित किया जा सकेगा तथा आगामी कलैण्डर वर्ष के लिए अग्रनीत नहीं किया जाएगा।

(घ) नियन्त्रक अधिकारी के अनुमोदन के बिना कत्र्तव्य (ड्‌यूटी) से अनधिकृत अनुपस्थिति से स्वतः ही संविदा का पर्यावसान (समापन) हो जाएगा। तथापि आपवादिक मामलों में जहॉं पर चिकित्सा आधार पर कत्र्तव्य (ड्‌यूटी) से अनधिकृत अनुपस्थिति के हालात संविदा पर नियुक्त व्यक्ति के नियन्त्रण से बाहर हों तो उसके नियमितीकरण के मामले में विचार करते समय ऐसी अवधि अपवर्जित नहीं की जाएगी, परन्तु पदधारी को इस बाबत समय पर नियन्त्रण अधिकारी को सूचित करना होगा। तथापि संविदा पर नियुक्त व्यक्ति कत्र्तव्य से अनुपस्थिति की ऐसी अवधि के लिए संविदात्मक रकम का हकदार नहीं होगा।

परन्तु उसे सरकार के प्रचलित अनुदेशों के अनुसार, चिकित्सा अधिकारी द्वारा जारी किए गए बीमारी/आरोग्य प्रमाण पत्र को प्रस्तुत करना होगा ; और

(ङ) संविदा पर नियुक्त पदधारी जिसने तैनाती के एक स्थान पर तीन वर्ष का कार्यकाल पूर्ण कर लिया है, आवश्यकता के आधार पर स्थानान्तरण हेतु पात्र होगा, जहां भी प्रशासनिक आधार पर ऐसा करना अपेक्षित हो । ''।

3. उपाबन्ध ''ख'' का संशोधन.--उक्त नियमों से संलग्न उपाबन्ध ''ख'' में संविदा/करार के विद्यमान प्ररूप में क्रंम संख्या 4,5 और 6 के विद्यमान उपबन्धों के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित रखा जाएगा अर्थात्‌ः-

''(4) संविदा पर नियुक्त फार्म सहायक, एक मास की सेवा पूरी करने के पश्चात्‌ एक दिन के आकस्मिक अवकाश का हकदार होगा। तथापि संविदा पर नियुक्त कर्मचारी 135 दिन के प्रसूति अवकाश, दस दिन के चिकित्सा अवकाश और पांच दिन के विशेेष अवकाश के लिए भी हकदार होगा/होगी। संविदा पर नियुक्त महिला कर्मचारी पूरी सेवा के दौरान, गर्भपात हो जाने सहित गर्भपात कराने की दशा में, प्राधिकृत सरकारी चिकित्सा अधिकारी द्वारा जारी चिकित्सा प्रमाण पत्र प्रस्तुत करने पर 45 दिन से अनधिक प्रसूति अवकाश (जीवित बच्चों की संख्या का विचार किए बिना) के लिए भी हकदार होगी। वह चिकित्सा प्रतिपूर्ति और एल0टी0सी0 आदि के लिए हकदार नहीं होगा/होगी। संविदा पर नियुक्त व्यक्ति को उपरोक्त के सिवाय किसी प्रकार का कोई अवकाश अनुज्ञात नहीं होगा :

परन्तु अनुपभुक्त आकस्मिक अवकाश, चिकित्सा अवकाश और विशेष अवकाश एक कलैण्डर वर्ष तक संचित किया जा सकेगा तथा आगामी कलैण्डर वर्ष के लिए अग्रनीत नहीं किया जाएगा।

(5) नियन्त्रक अधिकारी के अनुमोदन के बिना कत्र्तव्य (डयूटी) से अनधिकृत अनुपस्थिति से स्वतः ही संविदा का पर्यावसान (समापन) हो जाएगा। तथापि आपवादिक मामलों में जहॉं पर चिकित्सा आधार पर कत्र्तव्य (डयूटी) से अनधिकृत अनुपस्थिति के हालात संविदा पर नियुक्त व्यक्ति के नियन्त्रण से बाहर हों तो उसके नियमितीकरण के मामले में विचार करते समय ऐसी अवधि अपवर्जित नहीं की जाएगी, परन्तु पदधारी को इस बाबत समय पर नियन्त्रण अधिकारी को सूचित करना होगा। तथापि संविदा पर नियुक्त व्यक्ति कत्र्तव्य से अनुपस्थिति की ऐसी अवधि के लिए संविदात्मक रकम का हकदार नहीं होगा :

परन्तु उसे सरकार के प्रचलित अनुदेशों के अनुसार, चिकित्सा अधिकारी द्वारा जारी किए गए बीमारी/आरोग्य प्रमाण पत्र को प्रस्तुत करना होगा; और 2886 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 6. संविदा पर नियुक्त पदधारी जिसने तैनाती के एक स्थान पर तीन वर्ष का कार्यकाल पूर्ण कर लिया है, आवश्यकता के आधार पर स्थानान्तरण हेतु पात्र होगा, जहां भी प्रशासनिक आधार पर ऐसा करना अपेक्षित हो । ''।

आदेश द्वारा, हस्ताक्षरित/- प्रधान सचिव (मत्स्य पालन)।

--------

[Authoritative English Text of this Department Notification No. Fish- A (3)-1/2016 dated

01/07/2016 as required under Clause (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution of India].

FISHERIES DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-2, the 1st July, 2016

No. FSH-A (3)-1/2016.—In exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, in consultation with Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission is pleased to make the following rules further to amend the Himachal Pradesh, Department of Fisheries, Farm Assistant, Class-III (Non Gazetted), Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2009 notified vide this Department Notification No. Fish-A (3)-15/2001 dated 23/12/2009, namely :—

1. Short title and commencement.— (i) These rules may be called the Himachal Pradesh, Department of Fisheries, Farm Assistant, Class-III (Non-Gazetted), Recruitment and Promotion (Second amendment) Rules, 2016.

(ii) These rules shall come into force from the date of publication in the Rajpatra/eGazette, of Himachal Pradesh.

2. Amendment of Annexure-"A".—In Annexure "A" to the Himachal Pradesh, Department of Fisheries, Farm Assistant, Class-III (Non-Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the "said rules"),-

(a) for the existing provisions against Col. No. 2, the following shall be substituted, namely:—

"14 (Fourteen)" ;

(b) for the existing provisions against Col. No. 15-A (VII) (c), (d) & (e) , the following shall be substituted, namely:--

"(c ) The contract appointee will be entitled for one day's casual leave after putting one month service. However, the contract appointee will also be entitled for 135 days Maternity Leave, 10 days Medical Leave and 5 days special leave. A female contract appointee shall also be entitled for Maternity leave not exceeding 45 days (irrespective of the number of surviving children) during the entire service, in case of miscarriage including abortion, on production of medical certificate issued by the authorized2887 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 Government Medical Officer. He/she shall not be entitled for Medical re-imbursement and LTC etc. No leave of any kind except above is admissible to the contract appointee:

Provided that the un-availed Casual leave, medical leave and special leave can be accumulated upto the calendar year and will not be carried forward for the next calendar year;

(d) Unauthorized absence from the duty without the approval of the controlling officer shall automatically lead to the termination of the contract. However, in exceptional cases where the circumstances for un-authorized absence from duty were beyond his/ her control on medical grounds, such period shall not be excluded while considering his/ her case for regularization but the incumbent shall have to intimate the controlling authority in this regard well in time. However, the contract appointee shall not be entitled for contractual amount for this period of absence from duty:

Provided that he/ she shall submit the certificate of illness/ fitness issued by the Medical Officer, as per prevailing instructions of the Government; and

(e) An official appointed on contract basis who have completed three years tenure at one place of posting will be eligible for transfer on need based basis wherever required on administrative grounds.".

3. Amendment of Annexure-"B".—In Annexure "B" appended to the "said rules" in the existing Form of Contract/Agreement for the existing provisions against Sr. No. 4, 5 & 6, the following shall be substituted, namely:--

"(4) The Contractual Farm Assistant will be entitled for one day's casual leave after putting one month service. However, the contract appointee will also be entitled for 135 days Maternity Leave, 10 days Medical Leave and 5 days special leave. A female contract appointee shall also be entitled for Maternity leave not exceeding 45 days (irrespective of the number of surviving children) during the entire service, in case of miscarriage including abortion, on production of medical certificate issued by the authorized Government Medical Officer. He/she shall not be entitled for Medical re- imbursement and LTC etc. No leave of any kind except above is admissible to the contract appointee:

Provided that the un-availed Casual leave, medical leave and special leave can be accumulated upto the calendar year and will not be carried forward for the next calendar year;

(5) Unauthorized absence from the duty without the approval of the controlling officer shall automatically lead to the termination of the contract. However, in exceptional cases where the circumstances for un-authorized absence from duty were beyond his/ her control on medical grounds, such period shall not be excluded while considering his/ her case for regularization but the incumbent shall have to intimate the controlling authority in this regard well in time. However, the contract appointee shall not be entitled for contractual amount for this period of absence from duty:

Provided that he/ she shall submit the certificate of illness/ fitness issued by the Medical Officer, as per prevailing instructions of the Government; and 2888 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 (6) An official appointed on contract basis who have completed three years tenure at one place of posting will be eligible for transfer on need based basis wherever required on administrative grounds.".

By order, Sd/- Principal Secretary (Fisheries).

_____________

मत्स्य विभाग

अधिसूचना

शिमला-2, 11 जुलाई, 2016

संख्याः फिश-ए (3)-5/2004-II.--हिमाचल प्रदेश के राज्यपाल, भारत के संविधान के अनुच्छेद 309 के परन्तुक द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, इस विभाग की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना, तारीख 08-05-2014 द्वारा अधिसूचित, हिमाचल प्रदेश मत्स्यपालन विभाग में मत्स्य क्षेत्रीय सहायक, वर्ग-IV (अराजपत्रित), भर्ती और प्रोन्नति नियम, 2014 का और संशोधन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित नियम बनाते है, अर्थात्‌ 

1. संक्षिप्त नाम और प्रारम्भ.--(i) इन नियमों का संक्षिप्त नाम हिमाचल प्रदेश मत्स्यपालन विभाग, मत्स्य क्षेत्रीय सहायक, वर्ग-IV (अराजपत्रित) भर्ती और प्रोन्नति (प्रथम संशोधन) नियम, 2016 है। (ii) ये नियम राजपत्र/ई गजट, हिमाचल प्रदेश में प्रकाशित किए जाने की तारीख से प्रवृत्त होंगे। 2. उपाबन्ध ''क'' का संशोधन.--हिमाचल प्रदेश मत्स्यपालन विभाग, मत्स्य क्षेत्रीय सहायक, वर्ग-IV (अराजपत्रित) भर्ती और प्रोन्नति नियम, 2014 (जिन्हें इसमें इसके पश्चात्‌ ''उक्त नियम'' कहा गया है) के उपाबन्ध ''क'' में ,-

(क) स्तम्भ संख्या 2 के सामने विद्यमान उपाबन्ध के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित रखा जाएगा, अर्थात्‌ः-- ''136 (एक सौ छत्तीस)'';

(ख) स्तम्भ संख्याः 15-क (VII) (ग) के सामने विद्यमान उपबन्धों के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित रखा जाएगा, अर्थातः-

''संविदा पर नियुक्त व्यक्ति, एक मास की सेवा पूरी करने के पश्चात्‌ एक दिन के आकस्मिक अवकाश का हकदार होगा। तथापि संविदा पर नियुक्त कर्मचारी 135 दिन के प्रसूति अवकाश, दस दिन के चिकित्सा अवकाश और पांच दिन के विशेेष अवकाश के लिए भी हकदार होगा/होगी। संविदा पर नियुक्त महिला कर्मचारी पूरी सेवा के दौरान, गर्भपात हो जाने सहित गर्भपात कराने की दशा में, प्राधिकृत सरकारी चिकित्सा अधिकारी द्वारा जारी चिकित्सा प्रमाण पत्र प्रस्तुत करने पर 45 दिन से अनधिक प्रसूति अवकाश (जीवित बच्चों की संख्या का विचार किए बिना) के लिए भी हकदार होगी। वह चिकित्सा प्रतिपूर्ति और एल0टी0सी0, आदि के लिए हकदार नहीं होगा/होगी। संविदा पर नियुक्त व्यक्ति को उपरोक्त के सिवाय किसी प्रकार का कोई अवकाश अनुज्ञात नहीं होगा :

परन्तु अनुपभुक्त आकस्मिक अवकाश, चिकित्सा अवकाश और विशेष अवकाश एक कलैण्डर वर्ष तक संचित किया जा सकेगा तथा आगामी कलैण्डर वर्ष के लिए अग्रनीत नहीं किया जाएगा।2889 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 3. उपाबन्ध ''ख'' का संशोधन.--''उक्त नियमों से संलग्न उपाबन्ध ''ख'' में संविदा/करार के विद्यमान प्ररूप की क्रम संख्या 4 के विद्यमान उपबन्धों के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित रखा जाएगा अर्थात्‌ :-- ''(4) संविदा पर नियुक्त मत्स्य क्षेत्रीय सहायक, एक मास की सेवा पूरी करने के पश्चात्‌ एक दिन के आकस्मिक अवकाश का हकदार होगा। तथापि संविदा पर नियुक्त कर्मचारी 135 दिन के प्रसूति अवकाश, दस दिन के चिकित्सा अवकाश और पांच दिन के विशेेष अवकाश के लिए भी हकदार होगा/होगी। संविदा पर नियुक्त महिला कर्मचारी पूरी सेवा के दौरान, गर्भपात हो जाने सहित गर्भपात कराने की दशा में, प्राधिकृत सरकारी चिकित्सा अधिकारी द्वारा जारी चिकित्सा प्रमाण पत्र प्रस्तुत करने पर 45 दिन से अनधिक प्रसूति अवकाश (जीवित बच्चों की संख्या का विचार किए बिना) के लिए भी हकदार होगी। वह चिकित्सा प्रतिपूर्ति और एल0टी0सी0, आदि के लिए हकदार नहीं होगा/होगी। संविदा पर नियुक्त व्यक्ति को उपरोक्त के सिवाय किसी अन्य प्रकार का कोई अवकाश अनुज्ञात नहीं होगा :

परन्तु अनुपभुक्त आकस्मिक अवकाश, चिकित्सा अवकाश और विशेष अवकाश एक कलैण्डर वर्ष तक संचित किया जा सकेगा तथा आगामी कलैण्डर वर्ष के लिए अग्रनीत नहीं किया जाएगा।''।

आदेश द्वारा, हस्ताक्षरित/- प्रधान सचिव (मत्स्य पालन)।

-------

[Authoritative English Text of this Department Notification No. Fish- A (3)-5/2004-II dated

11/07/2016 as required under Clause (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution of India].

FISHERIES DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-2, the 11th July, 2016

No. Fish-A (3)-5/2004-II.—In exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, is pleased to make the following rules further to amend the Himachal Pradesh, Department of Fisheries, Fisheries Field Assistant, Class-IV (Non Gazetted), Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2014 notified vide this Department Notification of even number dated 08/05/2014, namely :—

1. Short title and commencement.—(i) These rules may be called the Himachal Pradesh, Department of Fisheries, Fisheries Field Assistant, Class-IV (Non-Gazetted), Recruitment and Promotion (First Amendment) Rules, 2016.

(ii) These rules shall come into force from the date of publication in the Rajpatra/e-Gazette of Himachal Pradesh.

2. Amendment of Annexure-"A".—In Annexure "A" to the Himachal Pradesh, Department of Fisheries, Fisheries Field Assistant, Class-IV (Non-Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the "said rules"),-

(a) for the existing provisions against Col. No. 2, the following shall be substituted, namely :—

(a) for the existing provisions against Col. No. 15-A (VII) (C), the following shall be substituted, namely :—

"The contract appointee will be entitled for one day's casual leave after putting one month service. However, the contract appointee will also be entitled for 135 days Maternity Leave, 10 days Medical Leave and 5 days special leave. A female contract appointee shall also be entitled for Maternity leave not exceeding 45 days (irrespective of the number of surviving children) during the entire service, in case of miscarriage including abortion, on production of medical certificate issued by the authorized Government Medical Officer. He/she shall not be entitled for Medical re-imbursement and LTC etc. No leave of any kind except above is admissible to the contract appointee:

Provided that the un-availed Casual leave, medical leave and special leave can be accumulated upto the calendar year and will not be carried forward for the next calendar year.".

3. Amendment of Annexure-"B".—In Annexure "B" appended to the "said rules" in the exisiting Form of Contract/Agreement for the existing provisions against Sr. No. 4, the following shall be substituted, namely:—

"(4) The Contactual Fisheries Field Assistant will be entitled for one day's casual leave after putting one month service. However, the contract appointee will also be entitled for 135 days Maternity Leave, 10 days Medical Leave and 5 days special leave. A female contract appointee shall also be entitled for Maternity leave not exceeding 45 days (irrespective of the number of surviving children) during the entire service, in case of miscarriage including abortion, on production of medical certificate issued by the authorized Government Medical Officer. He/she shall not be entitled for Medical re- imbursement and LTC etc. No leave of any kind except above is admissible to the contract appointee:

Provided that the un-availed Casual leave, medical leave and special leave can be accumulated upto the calendar year and will not be carried forward for the next calendar year.".

By order, Sd/- Principal Secretary (Fisheries).

------------

परिवहन विभाग

अधिसूचना

शिमला-2, 21 जून, 2016

संख्या : टी0 पी0 टी0-एफ (6)-3/2015.--हिमाचल प्रदेश के राज्यपाल, हिमाचल प्रदेश मोटर यान कराधान अधिनियम, 1972 (1973 का अधिनियम संख्याक 4) की धारा 14 की उपधारा (3) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों2891 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 का प्रयोग करते हुए, हिमाचल प्रदेश में रजिस्ट्रीकृत विद्युत यानों को, पूर्वोक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 के अधीन उद्‌ग्रहणीय कर के संदाय से सहर्ष छूट देते हैं।

आदेश द्वारा, संजय गुप्ता, प्रधान सचिव (परिवहन)।

---------

[Authoritative English text of this department Notification No. Tpt-F(6)-3/2015 dated 21-06-2016

as required under clause (3) of article 348 of the Constitution of India.]

TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-2, 21st June, 2016

No. TPT-F (6)-3/2015.—The Governor, Himachal Pradesh, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 3 of Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1972 (Act No. 4 of 1973) is pleased to exempt Electric Vehicles registered in Himachal Pradesh from the payment of Tax leviable under section-3 of the Act ibid with immediate effect.

By order, (SANJAY GUPTA), Principal Secretary (Transport). .

__________

INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-2, the 16th June, 2016

No. Ind-II(A)9-1/2014.—In continuation of this department notification of even No dated 13.12.2011 and dated 26.5.2016, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh in exercise of the powers vested under Section 3 of the HP Public Services Guarantee Act, 2011 is pleased to notify the following service, Designated Officers, 1st Appellate Authority and stipulated time limit relating to the Industries Department, Himachal Pradesh for the purpose of the Act ibid:—

2892 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 Second Appellate Authority

State Information Commissioner has been notified Second Appellate Authority under Section 2 (h).

By order, R. D. DHIMAN, Pr. Secretary (Ind).

___________

Annexure-A

Procedure for " Grievance Application and Redressal" Service

1. Applicant will send his/her grievances to concerned to concerned GM, DIC/Joint Director, SWCA/Member Secy. SWCA. If the complaint/grievance pertains to field offices, it is to be submitted to Director of Industries, HP Shimla clearly mentioning the subject matter of grievance/date of application (if possible enclose the copy of previous correspondence done).

2. At field level/Directorate level marked grievance application will be sent to concerned section/Programme Officer within 3 days of receipt.

3. After examining the matter, the applicant shall be informed of the factual position and action will be initiated for redressal of grievances of the applicant within 10 days time.

4. If the applicant is not satisfied with the reply, an appeal can be made by the complainant to the next higher authority, who will hear the complaint and decide the issue within 7 days of receipt of the same. This procedure will address all the grievance pertaining to Industries Department including Single Window System.

_________

LANGUAGE, ART & CULTURE DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla- 2, 18th July, 2016

No. LCD-C (15)-2/2016.—In supersession of all previous notifications issued in this behalf, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to increase the Grant-in-aid given to different District, State and National level fairs declared by the Government as under:-

राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 This issues with the prior concurrence of the Finance Department obtained vide their U.O. No. 53611716 FIN (C)/2016 dated: May 30, 2016.

This will come to operation from April 01, 2016.

By order, (ANURADHA THAKUR), (Secretary (LAC).

____________

कार्मिक विभाग (नियुक्ति-II)

अधिसूचना

शिमला-2, 19 जुलाई, 2016

सं0 पर(एपी-बी)ए(3)-15/2013.--हिमाचल प्रदेश के राज्यपाल, भारत के संविधान के अनुच्छेद 318 के साथ पठित अनुच्छेद 309 के परन्तुक द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, हिमाचल प्रदेश लोक सेवा आयोग के परामर्श से, हिमाचल प्रदेश लोक सेवा आयोग में, उप सचिव, गैर-हिमाचल प्रदेश प्रशासनिक सेवा, वर्ग-I (राजपत्रित) के पद के लिए इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न उपाबन्ध 'क' के अनुसार भर्ती और प्रोन्नति नियम बनाते हैं, अर्थात :-

1. संक्षिप्त नाम और प्रारम्भ.--(1) इन नियमों का संक्षिप्त नाम हिमाचल प्रदेश लोक सेवा आयोग, उप सचिव, गैर-हिमाचल प्रदेश प्रशासनिक सेवा, वर्ग-I, (राजपत्रित) भर्ती और प्रोन्नति नियम, 2016 है । (2) ये नियम राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश में प्रकाशित किए जाने की तारीख से प्रवृत होंगे । 2. निरसन और व्यावृाियां.--(1) इस विभाग की अधिसूचना संख्याः पर (एपी-बी)बी(2)-4/98 दिनांक 20-11-1998 द्वारा अधिसूचित हिमाचल प्रदेश लोक सेवा आयोग, उप सचिव (गैर-हिमाचल प्रदेश शासकीय सेवा) वर्ग-I (राजपत्रित) भर्ती और प्रोन्नति नियम, 1998 का एतद्‌द्वारा निरसन किया जाता है। (2) ऐसे निरसन के होते हुए भी उपर्युक्त उप नियम (1) के अधीन इस प्रकार निरसित नियमों के अधीन की गई कोई नियुक्ति, बात या कार्रवाई इन नियमों के अधीन विधिमान्य रूप में की गई समझी जाएगी।

आदेश द्वारा, वी0 सी0 फारका, मुख्य सचिव।

------

उपाबन्ध-''क'' हिमाचल प्रदेश लोक सेवा आयोग के कार्यालय में उप सचिव, गैर-हिमाचल प्रदेश प्रशासनिक सेवा, वर्ग-I (राजपत्रित) के पद के लिए भर्ती और प्रोन्नति नियम

1. पद का नाम.--उप सचिव

2. पदों की संख्या.--01 (एक)2894 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 3. वर्गीकरण.--वर्ग-I (राजपत्रित) 4. वेतनमान.--पे बैन्ड ` 15600-39100 जमा ` 7600/- ग्रेड पे

5. चयन पद अथवा अचयन पद.--चयन

6. सीधी भर्ती के लिए आयु.--लागू नहीं

7. सीधे भर्ती किए जाने वाले व्यक्तियों के लिए अपेक्षित न्यूनतम शैक्षिक और अन्य अर्हताएं.--लागू नहीं।

8. सीधे भर्ती किए जाने वाले व्यक्तियों के लिए विहित आयु और शैक्षिक अर्हताएं, प्रोन्नति की दशा में लागू होगी या नहीं : आयु.--लागू नहीं ।

शैक्षिक अहर्ता.--लागू नहीं

9. परिवीक्षा की अवधि, यदि कोई हो.--लागू नहीं।

10. भर्ती की पद्वति-भर्ती सीधी होगी या प्रोन्नति, प्रतिनियुक्ति, स्थानान्तरण द्वारा और विभिन्न पद्धतियों द्वारा भरे जाने वाले पदों की प्रतिशतता.--शतप्रतिशत प्रोन्नति द्वारा।

11. प्रोन्नति, प्रतिनियुक्ति, स्थानान्तरण द्वारा भर्ती की दशा में वे श्रेणियां (ग्रेड), जिनसे प्रोन्नति/प्रतिनियुक्ति/स्थानान्तरण किया जाएगा.--अवर सचिवों में से प्रोन्नति द्वारा, जिनका तीन वर्ष का नियमित सेवाकाल, या गे्रड में की गई लगातार तदर्थ सेवा, यदि कोई हो, को सम्मिलित करके तीन वर्ष का नियमित सेवाकाल हो, ऐसा न होने पर अवर सचिवों में से प्रोन्नति द्वारा, जिनका अवर सचिव और अनुभाग अधिकारी के रूप में संयुक्ततः चार वर्ष का नियमित सेवाकाल या की गई लगातार तदर्थ सेवा, यदि कोई हो, को सम्मिलित करके चार वर्ष का नियमित सेवाकाल हो जिसमें अवर सचिव के रूप में दो वर्ष का अनिवार्य सेवाकाल भी सम्मिलित होगा।

(1) प्रोन्नति के सभी मामलों में पद पर नियमित नियुक्ति से पूर्व सम्भरक (पोषक) पद में की गई लगातार तदर्थ सेवा, यदि कोई हो, प्रोन्नति के लिए इन नियमों में यथाविहित सेवाकाल के लिए, इस शर्त के अधीन रहते हुए गणना में ली जाएगी, कि सम्भरक (पोषक) प्रवर्ग में तदर्थ नियुक्ति/प्रोन्नति भर्ती और प्रोन्नति नियमों के उपबन्धों के अनुसार चयन की उचित स्वीकार्य प्रक्र्रिया को अपनाने के पश्चात्‌ की गई थीः परन्तु उन सभी मामलों में जिनमें कोई कनिष्ठ व्यक्ति सम्भरक (पोषक) पद में अपने कुल सेवाकाल (तदर्थ आधार पर की गई तदर्थ सेवा सहित, जो नियमित सेवा/नियुक्ति के अनुसरण में हो) के आधार पर उपर्युक्त निर्दिष्ट उपबन्धों के कारण विचार किए जाने का पात्र हो जाता है, वहां अपने-अपने प्रवर्ग/पद/काडर में उससे वरिष्ठ सभी व्यक्ति विचार किए जाने के पात्र समझे जाएंगे और विचार करते समय कनिष्ठ व्यक्ति से ऊपर रखे जाएंगेः

परन्तु यह और कि उन सभी पदधारियों की, जिन पर प्रोन्नति के लिए विचार किया जाना है, कम से कम तीन वर्ष की न्यूनतम अर्हता सेवा या पद के भर्ती और प्रोन्नति नियमों में विहित सेवा, जो भी कम हो, होगीः

परन्तु यह और भी कि जहां कोई व्यक्ति पूर्वगामी परन्तुक की अपेक्षाओं के कारण प्रोन्नति किए जाने सम्बन्धी विचार के लिए अपात्र हो जाता है, वहां उससे कनिष्ठ व्यक्ति भी ऐसी प्रोन्नति के विचार के लिए अपात्र समझा जाएगा/समझे जाएंगे।

स्पष्टीकरण.--अंतिम परन्तुक के अन्तर्गत कनिष्ठ पदधारी प्रोन्नति के लिए अपात्र नहीं समझा जाएगा, यदि वरिष्ठ अपात्र व्यक्ति भूतपर्व सैनिक है, जिसे डिमोबीलाइज्ड आमर्ड फोर्सिज परसोनल (रिजर्वेशन ऑफ2895 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 वैकेन्सीज इन हिमाचल स्टेट नॉन टैक्नीकल सर्विसीज) रूल्ज, 1972 के नियम-3 के उपबन्धों के अन्तर्गत भर्ती किया गया हैे और इनके अन्तर्गत वरीयता लाभ दिए गए हों या जिसे, एक्स सर्विसमैंन (रिजर्वेशन ऑफ वैकेन्सीज इन दी हिमाचल प्रदेश टेैक्नीकल सर्विसीज) रूल्ज, 1985 के नियम-3 के उपबन्धों के अन्तर्गत भर्ती किया गया हो और इनके अन्तर्गत वरीयता लाभ दिए गए हों।

(2) इसी प्रकार स्थायीकरण के सभी मामलों मे ऐसे पद पर नियमित नियुक्ति से पूर्व सम्भरक (पोषक) पद पर की गई लगातार तदर्थ सेवा, यदि कोई हो, सेवाकाल के लिए गणना में ली जाएगी, यदि तदर्थ नियुक्ति/प्रोन्नति, उचित चयन के पश्चात्‌ और भर्ती और प्रोन्नति नियमों के उपबन्धों के अनुसार की गई थीः

परन्तु की गई उपर्युक्त निर्दिष्ट तदर्थ सेवा को गणना में लेने के पश्चात्‌ जो स्थायीकरण होगा, उसके फलस्वरूप पारस्परिक वरीयता अपरिवर्तित रहेगी।

12. यदि विभागीय प्रोन्नति समिति विद्यमान हो, तो उसकी संरचना.--जैसी सरकार द्वारा समय-समय पर गठित की जाए ।

13. भर्ती करने में जिन परिस्थितियों में हिमाचल प्रदेश लोक सेवा आयोग से परामर्श किया जाएगा.--जैसा विधि द्वारा अपेक्षित हो ।

14. सीधी भर्ती के लिए अनिवार्य अपेक्षा.--लागू नहीं ।

15. सीधी भर्ती द्वारा पद पर नियुक्ति के लिए चयन.--लागू नहीं ।

16. आरक्षण.--सेवा में नियुक्ति, हिमाचल प्रदेश सरकार द्वारा समय-समय पर अनुसूचित जातियों/अनुसूचित जनजातियों/अन्य पिछड़े वर्गों और अन्य प्रवर्ग के व्यक्तियों के लिए सेवा में आरक्षण की बाबत जारी किए गए आदेशों के अधीन होगी ।

17. विभागीय परीक्षा.--सेवा में प्रत्येक सदस्य को, हिमाचल प्रदेश विभागीय परीक्षा नियम, 1997 में यथा विहित विभागीय परीक्षा उत्तीर्ण करनी होगी ।

18. शिथिल करने की शक्ति.--जहां राज्य सरकार की यह राय हो कि ऐसा करना आवश्यक या समीचीन है, वहां यह कारणों को लिखित में अभिलिखित करके, आदेश द्वारा और हिमाचल प्रदेश लोक सेवा आयोग के परामर्श से, इन नियमों के किन्ही उपबन्धों को किसी वर्ग या व्यक्तियों के प्रवर्ग या पद (पदों) की बाबत शिथिल कर सकेगी ।

------

[Authoritative English Text of this department Notification No. Per(AP-B)A(3)15/2013 dated

19-07-2016 as required under clause (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution of India].

PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT

(AP-II)

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-171002, 19th July, 2016

No. Per(AP-B)A(3)15/2013.—In exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 read with Article 318 of the Constitution of India, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh in consultation with the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission is pleased to make the 2896 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Deputy Secretary, Non-HPAS, Class-I (Gazetted) in the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission as per Annexure "A" attached to this notification; namely:—

1. Short title and commencement.—(1) These rules may be called the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, Deputy Secretary, Non-HPAS, Class-I (Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2016.

(2) These rules shall come into force from the date of publication in the Rajpatra, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Repeal and savings.—(1) The Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, Deputy Secretary (Non-HPAS), Class-I (Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1998 notified vide this department notification No. Per (AP-B)B(2)4/98, dated 20- 11-1998 are hereby repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, any appointment made or anything done or any action taken under the rules so repealed under sub-rule(1) supra shall be deemed to have been validly made or done or taken under these rules.

By order, V. C. PHARKA, Chief Secretary.

--------------

Annexure "A"

RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION RULES FOR THE POST OF DEPUTY SECRETARY, NON-HPAS, CLASS-I (GAZETTED) IN THE OFFICE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

1. Name of post-—Deputy Secretary

2. Number of posts.—01 (one)

3. Classification.—Class-I (Gazetted)

4. Scale of pay.— Pay Band ` 15600-39100 + ` 7600 Grade Pay

5. Whether Selection post or non-selection post.—Selection

6. Age for direct recruitment.—Not Applicable

7. Minimum Educational and other qualifications required for direct recruits.—Not

Applicable.

8. Whether age and educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruits will

apply in the case of the promotees.—Age.—Not Applicable

Educational Qualification.—Not Applicable

9. Period of probation, if any.—Not applicable2897 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938

10. Method of recruitment whether by direct recruitment or by promotion,

deputation, transfer and the percentage of posts to be filled in by various methods.—100 % by

promotion.

11. In case of recruitment by promotion, deputation, transfer, grade from which promotion/deputation/transfer is to be made.—By promotion from amongst the Under Secretaries possessing 03 years' regular service or regular combined with continuous adhoc service, if any, in the grade failing which by promotion from amongst the Under Secretaries possessing 04 (four) years' regular service or regular combined with continuous adhoc service, if any, as Under Secretary and Section Officer combined which shall also include essential service of 02 years as Under Secretary.

(1) In all cases of promotion, the continuous adhoc service rendered in the feeder post, if any, prior to regular appointment to the post shall be taken into account towards the length of service as prescribed in these rules for promotion subject to the condition that the adhoc appointment/promotion in the feeder category had been made after following proper acceptable process of selection in accordance with the provisions of R & P Rules :

Provided that in all cases where a junior person becomes eligible for consideration by virtue of his total length of service (including the service rendered on adhoc basis followed by regular service/appointment) in the feeder post in view of the provision referred to above, all persons senior to him/her in the respective category/post/cadre shall be deemed to be eligible for consideration and placed above the junior person in the field of consideration :

Provided further that all incumbents to be considered for promotion shall possess the minimum qualifying service of atleast three years or that prescribed in the R & P Rules for the post, whichever is less :

Provided further that where a person becomes ineligible to be considered for promotion on account of the requirements of the preceding proviso, the person(s) junior to him shall also be deemed to be ineligible for consideration for such promotion.

EXPLANATION.—The last proviso shall not render the junior incumbents ineligible for consideration for promotion if the senior ineligible persons happened to be Ex-Servicemen recruited under the provisions of Rule-3 of Demobilised Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in Himachal State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972 and having been given the benefit of seniority thereunder or recruited under the provisions of Rule-3 of Ex-servicemen (Reservation of Vacancies in Himachal Pradesh Technical Services) Rules, 1985 and having been given the benefit of seniority thereunder.

(2) Similarly in all cases of confirmation, continuous adhoc service rendered in the feeder post, if any, prior to the regular appointment against such post shall be taken into account towards the length of service, if the adhoc appointment/ promotion had been made after proper selection and in accordance with the provisions of the R & P Rules :

Provided that inter-se-seniority as a result of confirmation after taking into account, adhoc service rendered as referred to above shall remain unchanged.

12. If a Departmental Promotion Committee exists, what is its composition.—As may be constituted by the Government from time to time.

13. Circumstances under which the HP Public Service Commission is to be consulted

in making recruitment.—As required under the law.

15. Selection for appointment to post by direct recruitment.—Not Applicable

16. Reservation.— The appointment to the service shall be subject to orders regarding reservation in the service for Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes /Other Backward Classes/ Other categories of persons issued by the Himachal Pradesh Government from time to time.

17. Departmental Examination.—Every member of the service shall pass the Departmental Examination as prescribed in the Himachal Pradesh Departmental Examination Rules, 1997.

18. Power to relax.—Where the State Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to do so, it may, by order for reasons to be recorded in writing and in consultation with the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, relax any of the provision(s) of these rules with respect to any class or category of person(s) or post(s).

_________

LAW DEPARTMENT

NOTICE

Shimla-2, the 18th July, 2016

No. LLR-E(9)- 1/ 2015-Leg.-III.—Whereas, the following Advocates of Districts Una and Solan, H.P. have applied for appointment of Public Notary in the places mentioned against their names of their respective Districts under rule 4 of the Notaries Rules, 1956:—

Therefore, I undersigned in exercise of the power conferred vide Government Notification No. LLR-A (2)-1/2014-Leg. dated 7th November, 2014, hereby issue notice under rule 6 of the Notaries Rules, 1956, for the information of general public for inviting objections, if any, within a period of fifteen days from the date of publication of this notice in Rajpatra, H.P. against their appointment as Notary Public in the places mentioned against their names of their respective Districts.

(Competent Authority), DLR-cum-Deputy Secretary (Law-Legislation) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh.

अब्दुल रशीद पुत्र हसनदीन, निवासी मुसवाडी, डाकघर पलियुर, तहसील चम्बा।

बनाम

आम जनता एवं ग्राम पंचायत पलियुर, विकास खण्ड चम्बा

विषय.-जन्म तिथि पंजीकरण सम्बन्धी।

इस अदालत में अब्दुल रशीद पुत्र हसनदीन, निवासी मुसवाडी, डाकघर पलियुर, तहसील चम्बा ने एक दरख्वास्त देकर अनुरोध किया है कि उसके पुत्र नामक मोहम्मद शब्बीर की जन्म तिथि 08-12-2010 है लेकिन जन्म से सम्बन्धित घटना ग्राम पंचायत पलियुर, विकास खण्ड चम्बा में दर्ज न है।

अतः सर्वसाधारण जनता को इश्तहार द्वारा सूचित किया जाता है कि अब्दुल रशीद पुत्र हसनदीन, निवासी मुसवाडी, डाकघर पलियुर, तहसील चम्बा के पुत्र की जन्म तिथि को ग्राम पंचायत पलियुर, विकास खण्ड चम्बा के जन्म अभिलेख में दर्ज करने पर अगर किसी को किसी भी प्रकार की कोई आपाि है तो वह असालतन या वकालतन अपनी आपाि इस अदालत में इश्तहार के प्रकाशन के एक माह के भीतर-भीतर सुबह 10 से सायं 5.00 बजे तक दर्ज करवा सकता है। निर्धारित अवधि में आपाि न आने की सूरत में प्रार्थी के पुत्र की जन्म तिथि को दर्ज करने के आदेश सम्बन्धित स्थानीय रजिस्ट्रार जन्म एवं मृत्यु ग्राम पंचायत पलियुर, विकास खण्ड चम्बा को पारित कर दिए जायेंगे।

आज दिनांक 04-07-2016 को मेरे हस्ताक्षर व मोहर अदालत सहित जारी हुये।

मोहर।

हस्ताक्षरित/- उप-मण्डल दण्डाधिकारी, चम्बा, जिला चम्बा (हि0 प्र0)।

---------

ब अदालत श्री बच्चन सिंह (हि0 प्र0 से0), उप-मण्डल दण्डाधिकारी, चम्बा, जिला चम्बा मुहम्मद शरीफ पुत्र नूर हसन, निवासी रपडी, डाकघर साहो, तहसील चम्बा।

बनाम

आम जनता एवं ग्राम पंचायत पलियुर, विकास खण्ड चम्बा

विषय.-जन्म तिथि पंजीकरण सम्बन्धी।

इस अदालत में मुहम्मद शरीफ पुत्र नूर हसन, निवासी रपडी, डाकघर साहो, तहसील चम्बा ने एक दरख्वास्त देकर अनुरोध किया है कि उसके पुत्र नामक शब्बीर की जन्म तिथि 01-04-2001 है लेकिन जन्म से सम्बन्धित घटना ग्राम पंचायत पलियुर, विकास खण्ड चम्बा में दर्ज न है।

अतः सर्वसाधारण जनता को इश्तहार द्वारा सूचित किया जाता है कि मुहम्मद शरीफ पुत्र नूर हसन, निवासी रपडी, डाकघर साहो, तहसील चम्बा के पुत्र की जन्म तिथि को ग्राम पंचायत पलियुर, विकास खण्ड 2900 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 चम्बा के जन्म अभिलेख में दर्ज करने पर अगर किसी को किसी भी प्रकार की कोई आपाि है तो वह असालतन या वकालतन अपनी आपाि इस अदालत में इश्तहार के प्रकाशन के एक माह के भीतर-भीतर सुबह 10 बजे से सायं 5.00 बजे तक दर्ज करवा सकता है। निर्धारित अवधि में आपाि न आने की सूरत में प्रार्थी के पुत्र की जन्म तिथि को दर्ज करने के आदेश सम्बन्धित स्थानीय रजिस्ट्रार जन्म एवं मृत्यु ग्राम पंचायत पलियुर, विकास खण्ड चम्बा को पारित कर दिए जायेंगे।

आज दिनांक 04-07-2016 को मेरे हस्ताक्षर व मोहर अदालत सहित जारी हुये।

मोहर।

हस्ताक्षरित/- उप-मण्डल दण्डाधिकारी, चम्बा, जिला चम्बा (हि0 प्र0)।

---------

ब अदालत श्री बच्चन सिंह (हि0 प्र0 से0), उप-मण्डल दण्डाधिकारी, चम्बा, जिला चम्बा सौरभ पुत्र राजेश महाजन, निवासी भद्रम, डाकघर राजपुरा, तहसील चम्बा।

बनाम

आम जनता एवं ग्राम पंचायत हरिपुर, विकास खण्ड चम्बा

विषय.-जन्म तिथि पंजीकरण सम्बन्धी।

इस अदालत में सौरभ पुत्र राजेश महाजन, निवासी भद्रम, डाकघर राजपुरा, तहसील चम्बा ने एक दरख्वास्त देकर अनुरोध किया है कि उसकी जन्म तिथि 15-04-1993 है लेकिन जन्म से सम्बन्धित घटना ग्राम पंचायत हरिपुर, विकास खण्ड चम्बा में दर्ज न है।

अतः सर्वसाधारण जनता को इश्तहार द्वारा सूचित किया जाता है कि सौरभ पुत्र राजेश महाजन, निवासी भद्रम, डाकघर राजपुरा, तहसील चम्बा की जन्म तिथि को ग्राम पंचायत हरिपुर, विकास खण्ड चम्बा के जन्म अभिलेख में दर्ज करने पर अगर किसी को किसी भी प्रकार की कोई आपाि है तो वह असालतन या वकालतन अपनी आपाि इस अदालत में इश्तहार के प्रकाशन के एक माह के भीतर-भीतर सुबह 10 बजे से सायं 5.00 बजे तक दर्ज करवा सकता है। निर्धारित अवधि में आपाि न आने की सूरत में प्रार्थी की जन्म तिथि को दर्ज करने के आदेश सम्बन्धित स्थानीय रजिस्ट्रार जन्म एवं मृत्यु ग्राम पंचायत हरिपुर, विकास खण्ड चम्बा को पारित कर दिए जायेंगे।

आज दिनांक 10-06-2016 को मेरे हस्ताक्षर व मोहर अदालत सहित जारी हुये।

मोहर।

हस्ताक्षरित/- उप-मण्डल दण्डाधिकारी, चम्बा, जिला चम्बा (हि0 प्र0)।

---------

ब अदालत श्री बच्चन सिंह (हि0 प्र0 से0), उप-मण्डल दण्डाधिकारी, चम्बा, जिला चम्बा परस राम पुत्र मचलू, निवासी गांव चौंरी, परगना पियुहरा, तहसील चम्बा।

बनाम

आम जनता एवं ग्राम सभा, ग्राम पंचायत कुंर, विकास खण्ड मैहला2901 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 विषय.-जन्म तिथि पंजीकरण सम्बन्धी। इस अदालत में परस राम पुत्र मचलू, निवासी गांव चौंरी, परगना पियुहरा, तहसील चम्बा ने एक दरख्वास्त देकर अनुरोध किया है कि उसका सही नाम परस राम है परन्तु ग्राम पंचायत कुंर, विकास खण्ड मैहला, में उसका नाम परसो गलत दर्ज है। प्रार्थी ने ग्राम पंचायत कुंर, विकास खण्ड मैहला में नाम परसो के बजाये परस राम दर्ज करने का अनुरोध किया है।

अतः सर्वसाधारण जनता को इश्तहार द्वारा सूचित किया जाता है कि परस राम पुत्र मचलू, निवासी गांव चन्देला, डा0 परीना, परगना पियुहरा, तहसील चम्बा के नाम को ग्राम पंचायत कुंर, विकास खण्ड मैहला के अभिलेख में दर्ज करने पर अगर किसी को किसी भी प्रकार की कोई आपाि है तो वह असालतन या वकालतन अपनी आपाि इस अदालत में इश्तहार के प्रकाशन के एक माह के भीतर-भीतर सुबह 10 बजे से सायं 5.00 बजे तक दर्ज करवा सकता है। निर्धारित अवधि में आपाि न आने की सूरत में प्रार्थी के नाम को दरुस्त करने के आदेश सम्बन्धित स्थानीय रजिस्ट्रार जन्म एवं मृत्यु ग्राम पंचायत कुंर, विकास खण्ड मैहला को पारित कर दिए जायेंगे।

आज दिनांक 04-07-2016 को मेरे हस्ताक्षर व मोहर अदालत सहित जारी हुये।

मोहर।

हस्ताक्षरित/- उप-मण्डल दण्डाधिकारी, चम्बा, जिला चम्बा (हि0 प्र0)।

---------

ब अदालत श्री बच्चन सिंह (हि0 प्र0 से0), उप-मण्डल दण्डाधिकारी, चम्बा, जिला चम्बा श्री परस राम पुत्र श्री मौहरी राम, निवासी चन्हेला, डाकघर परीना, तहसील चम्बा।

बनाम

आम जनता एवं ग्राम सभा, ग्राम पंचायत परीना, विकास खण्ड मैहला

विषय.-जन्म तिथि पंजीकरण सम्बन्धी।

इस अदालत में श्री परस राम पुत्र श्री मौहरी राम, निवासी चन्हेला, डाकघर परीना, तहसील चम्बा ने एक दरख्वास्त देकर अनुरोध किया है कि उसके बेटे नामक आयुष कुमार की सही जन्म तिथि 28-09-2015 है परन्तु ग्राम पंचायत परीना के रिकार्ड में जन्म तिथि 28-10-2015 है जोकि गलत दर्ज है। प्रार्थी ने जन्म तिथि को ग्राम पंचायत परीना, विकास खण्ड मैहला में सही दर्ज करने का अनुरोध किया है।

अतः सर्वसाधारण जनता को इश्तहार द्वारा सूचित किया जाता है कि श्री परस राम पुत्र श्री मौहरी राम, निवासी चन्हेला, डाकघर परीना, तहसील चम्बा के बेटे की जन्म तिथि को ग्राम पंचायत परीना, विकास खण्ड मैहला के जन्म अभिलेख में दर्ज करने पर अगर किसी को किसी भी प्रकार की कोई आपाि है तो वह असालतन या वकालतन अपनी आपाि इस अदालत में इश्तहार के प्रकाशन के एक माह के भीतर-भीतर सुबह 10.00 बजे से सायं 5.00 बजे तक दर्ज करवा सकता है। निर्धारित अवधि में आपाि न आने की सूरत में प्रार्थी के पुत्र की जन्म तिथि को दरुस्त करने के आदेश सम्बन्धित स्थानीय रजिस्ट्रार जन्म एवं मृत्यु ग्राम पंचायत परीना, विकास खण्ड मैहला को पारित कर दिए जायेंगे।

आज दिनांक 04-07-2016 को मेरे हस्ताक्षर व मोहर अदालत सहित जारी हुये।

मोहर।

हस्ताक्षरित/- उप-मण्डल दण्डाधिकारी, चम्बा, जिला चम्बा (हि0 प्र0)।2902 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़, 1938 ब अदालत उप-मण्डल दण्डाधिकारी, चम्बा, जिला चम्बा, हि0 प्र0 श्रीमती किशनो देवी पत्नी स्व0 प्रहलाद, निवासी गांव भुलैना, डाकघर रजेरा, तहसील व जिला चम्बा, हि0 प्र0।

बनाम

आम जनता

श्रीमती किशनो देवी पत्नी स्व0 प्रहलाद, निवासी गांव भुलैना, डाकघर रजेरा, तहसील व जिला चम्बा, हि0 प्र0 ने इस अदालत में दरख्वास्त गुजारी है कि उसकी शादी दिनांक 07-12-1972 को श्री प्रहलाद पुत्र मैहतू, निवासी गांव भुलैना, डाकघर रजेरा, तहसील व जिला चम्बा के साथ मुताविक हिन्दू रीति-रिवाज के साथ हुई थी तथा उससे उनके चार बच्चे भी हुये हैं। परन्तु उसकी शादी का पंजीकरण नही हुआ है, अब उसे शादी प्रमाण पत्र की आवश्यकता है इसलिए उसने शादी पंजीकृत करने हेतु प्रार्थना की है।

इस इश्तहार के माध्यम से सर्वसाधारण जनता को सूचित किया जाता है कि अगर किसी भी व्यक्ति को उपरोक्त की शादी पंजीकरण बारे किसी भी प्रकार का उजर व एतराज हो तो वह इस इश्तहार प्रकाशन के एक माह पश्चात्‌ इस अदालत में असालतन या वकालतन हाजिर आकर पैरवी मुकद्दमा कर सकता है। इसके पश्चात्‌ किसी भी प्रकार का उजर व एतराज काबले समायत नहीं होगा तथा श्रीमती किशनो देवी उपरोक्त की शादी पंजीकृत कर दी जाएगी।

आज दिनांक 30-06-2016 को मेरे हस्ताक्षर मोहर सहित अदालत से जारी हुये।

मोहर।

हस्ताक्षरित/- उप-मण्डल दण्डाधिकारी, चम्बा, जिला चम्बा (हि0 प्र0)।

--------

ब अदालत श्री बच्चन सिंह, उप मण्डल दण्डाधिकारी, चम्बा, जिला चम्बा, हि0 प्र0

श्रीमती गुड्‌डी देवी पत्नी श्री विनोद कुमार, निवासी मुहल्ला ओगड़ी, तहसील व जिला चम्बा, हि0 प्र0

बनाम

आम जनता

श्रीमती गुड्‌डी देवी पत्नी श्री विनोद कुमार, निवासी मुहल्ला ओगड़ी, तहसील व जिला चम्बा, हि0 प्र0 ने इस अदालत में एक प्रार्थना पत्र गुजार कर निवेदन किया है कि उसका सही नाम गुड्‌डी देवी है, जो उसके आधार कार्ड व निर्वाचन पहचान पत्र के अनुसार सही है, परनतु नगरपालिका चम्बा के अभलेख में ममता गलत दर्ज हुआ है, जिसकी दरुस्ती हेतु प्रार्थना की है।

इस इश्तहार के माध्यम से सर्वसाधारण जनता को सूचित किया जाता है कि अगर किसी भी व्यक्ति को उपरोक्त गुड्‌डी देवी के नाम दरुस्ती बारे किसी भी प्रकार का उजर व एतराज हो तो वह इस अदालत में इस इश्तहार प्रकाशन के एक माह के पश्चात्‌ असालतन या वकालतन हाजिर आकर पैरवी मुकद्दमा करें। इसके पश्चात्‌ किसी भी प्रकार का उजर व एतराज काबले समायत नहीं होगा तथा उपरोक्त के नाम दरुस्ती बारे आदेश अदालत से जारी कर दिये जाएंगे।2903 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 20 जुलाई, 2016/29 आषाढ़ 1938 आज दिनांक 26 जून, 2016 को मेरे हस्ताक्षर मोहर सहित अदालत से जारी हुये। मोहर।

हस्ताक्षरित/- उप-मण्डल दण्डाधिकारी, चम्बा, जिला चम्बा (हि0 प्र0)।

---------

In the Court of Shri Gian Sagar Negi, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shimla (R),

District Shimla (H. P.)

Shri Chet Ram s/o Shri Rewa Dass, r/o Village & P.O. Mandhorhghat, Tehsil Suni, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

[

Versus

General Public .. Respondent.

Whereas Shri Chet Ram s/o Shri Rewa Dass, r/o Village & P.O. Mandhorhghat, Tehsil Suni, 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. Dharan Prakash s/o Shri Chet Ram s/o Shri Rewa Dass, r/o Village & P.O. Mandhorhghat, Tehsil Suni, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in the record of Secy., Birth and Death, Gram Panchayat Mandhorhghat, Shimla.

Hence, this proclamation is issued to the general public if they have any objection/claim regarding date of birth of above named in the record of Gram Panchayat Mandhorhghat, 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 18-07-2016 under my signature and seal of the court.

Seal. Sd/-

Sub-Divisional Magistrate,

Shimla (R), District Shimla.

__________

In the Court of Shri Gian Sagar Negi, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shimla (R),

District Shimla (H. P.)

Shri Shadi Lal s/o Shri Thunia Ram, r/o Sarpal Niwas near Water Tank, HB Colony, Sanjauli, Tehsil & District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

[

Versus

General Public .. Respondent.

Whereas Shri Shadi Lal s/o Shri Thunia Ram, r/o Sarpal Niwas near Water Tank, HB Colony, Sanjauli, 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. Ajay Kumar s/o Shri Shadi Lal s/o Shri Thunia Ram, r/o Sarpal Niwas near Water Tank, HB Colony, Sanjauli, Tehsil & District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in the record of Secy., Birth and Death, Municipal Corporation Shimla.

Hence, this proclamation is issued to the general public if they have any objection/claim regarding 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 28-06-2016 under my signature and seal of the court.

Seal. Sd/-

Sub-Divisional Magistrate,

Shimla (R), District Shimla.

_________

नाम परिवर्तन

मैं, प्रकाश चन्द सपुत्र श्री बाबू राम शर्मा, निवासी गांव महापूना, डाकघर हलोग (धामी), उप-तहसील धामी, जिला शिमला अपना नाम प्रकाश चंद से बदलकर प्रकाश शर्मा रख रहा हूं। सभी सरकारी दस्तावेजों में इसे दरुस्त किया जाए।

प्रकाश चन्द, सपुत्र श्री बाबू राम शर्मा, निवासी गांव महापूना, डाकघर हलोग (धामी), उप-तहसील धामी, जिला शिमला। नियन्त्रक, मुद्रण तथा लेखन सामग्री, हिमाचल प्रदेश, शिमला-5 द्वारा मुद्रित तथा प्रकाशित इलेक्ट्रॉनिक हस्ताक्षरित राजपत्र, वैबसाइट http://rajpatrahimachal.nic.in पर उपलब्ध है एवम्‌ ऑनलाइन सत्यापित किया जा सकता है