Himachal Pradesh Gazette, No. 223, 22 February 2017

click here for IIIF manifest

राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश हिमाचल प्रदेश राज्य शासन द्वारा प्रकाशित बुधवार 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938

हिमाचल प्रदेश सरकार

INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-2, the 17th February, 2017

No. Ind-A(B)2-5/2009-I.—The Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to constitute a Sub- Committee to discuss the aspects regarding sale of old stock of finished material of Nurpur Silk Mills in one-go on reduced rates, possibility of sale of silk material through Sericulture 223-राजपत्र/2017-22-02-2017 (7299) 7300 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 Department. The Sub-Committee will also examine as to whether the Nurpur Silk Mills can be transferred to Sericulture Department (Industries Department) and may also suggest further course of action for its survival. The constitution of Sub-Committee will be as under:—

Chairman

1. Director of Industries Himachal Pradesh.

2. Managing Director Member HP General Industries Corporation.

3. Special Secretary (Finance) to the Member Govt. of Himachal Pradesh.

Member

4. Dy. Director Sericulture Department of Industries, HP.

5. Manager, Nurpur Silk Mills Member Secretary Nurpur, Distt. Kangra.

The Sub-Committee will give its report within 02 months.

By order, Sd/- Principal Secretary (Inds.).

________

INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT

A-Section

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-171002, the 18th February, 2017

No. Ind.-A(B)1-1/2016.—The Governor, Himachal Pradesh, is pleased to order transfer and posting of the following Officers, with immediate effect, in public interest:—

1. Shri Tilak Raj Sharma, Joint Director (SWCA), Baddi, Distt. Solan is transferred and posted at Directorate of Industries, H. P. alongwith post.

2. Shri Anshul Dhiman, General Manager, DIC, Una, Distt. Una is transferred and posted as Deputy Director SWCA, Baddi, Distt. Solan. He shall also hold the additional charge of General Manager, DIC, Una till further orders.

The above officers are directed to report for duty at their new place of posting immediately and submit joining report to this Department as well as to the Director of Industries.

By order, R. D. DHIMAN Principal Secretary (Inds.).

NOTIFICATION

Dharamshala, the 14th December, 2016

No.Shram (A) 6-2/2014 (Awards).—In exercise of the powers vested under section 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, the Governor Himachal Pradesh is pleased to order the publication of awards of the following cases announced by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court 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. : 428/2015

Date of Institution : 11.09.2015

Date of Decision : 21.09.2016

Shri Raj Kumar s/o Shri Nant Ram, r/o Village Karoti, P.O. Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

Executive Engineer, 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. Rajeev Dharmani, 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 Raj Kumar S/O Shri Nant Ram, R/O Village Karoti, P.O. Killar, 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 dated-nil-received in the office on 22.11.2011 regarding his alleged illegal termination of service during October, 2004 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Shri Raj Kumar S/O Shri Nant Ram, R/O Village Karoti, P.O. Killar, 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 October, 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 revealed that he had been initially engaged as daily wage beldar on muster roll basis in the year 1988 who continuously worked till 2004 with the respondent. Averments made in the petition further revealed that petitioner had worked for 160 days in each calendar year as per 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 been 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 for the applicability of7303 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 one month's notice in writing stipulating therein reason for retrenchment besides no retrenchment compensation was paid to petitioner while respondent had been illegally terminated. It is also alleged that respondent had not followed the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act while disengaging petitioner from service. It is stated that petitioner is very poor who has no source of income besides after termination of the services of petitioner, petitioner had approached the respondent time and again but of no avail. The grievance of petitioner further remains that when the services of petitioner had been terminated, respondent/department had reengaged number of new workman from time to time and while doing so, respondent had not followed the principle of 'Last come, First go' envisaged under Section 25-G of the Act. It is further alleged that respondent/department had continuously retained junior to petitioner who are still in service 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 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 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 thus petitioner prays for setting aside oral order of termination/retrenchment of respondent in the month of September, 2004. He further prayed for reinstatement in service w.e.f. year 2004 along-with back wages, seniority including continuity in service as petitioner as he had remained unemployed since the date of his illegal termination. The petitioner has also prayed that period of intermittent/fictional breaks deliberately given time and again during entire service of petitioner between 1988 to 2004 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 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 1990 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. The allegations of fictional breaks given by respondent to the petitioner have been specifically 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 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 7304 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 order dated 30.7.2015 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/D1 to Ex. RW1/D4 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 16.02.2016 for determination:

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

2. Whether termination of the services of the petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. October, 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.1,40,000/- 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 1990 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 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 1990 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 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, 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, 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 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 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.

7306 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 14. A bare glance on the mandays chart Ex. RW1/B would reveal that petitioner had worked for 160 days in the year 1990, 91 days in 1996, 159 days in 1997, 165 days in 1998, 136.5 days in 1999, 134 days in 2000, 112 days in 2001, 90 days in 2002, 118 days in 2003 and 138 days in 2004 and thus a total of his service in 1990 to 2004 in 10 years he had worked for 1303.5 days in his entire service period. Be it noticed that except the years 1996, 1997 & 1999 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 138 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 1997 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 1990 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. counsel 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/D4. 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/D4 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. counsel for petitioner has contended that after petitioner's termination in October, 2004, he had remained unemployed and was not earning anything thereafter as such7307 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 was entitled for full back wages. Repudiating the arguments of ld. counsel 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 petitieonr relief claimed for by him. On the other hand, ld. counsel 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 the7308 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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.

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 from7309 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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. counsel 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 lac7310 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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 Employees7311 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 10 years and actually worked for 1303.5 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 seven 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. counsel 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.1,40,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty thousand only) would be an 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.

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.1,40,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty 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.

day of September, 2016.

Announced in the open Court today this 21st

(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. : 427/2015

Date of Institution : 11.09.2015

Date of Decision : 21.09.2016

Shri Vipan s/o Shri Gian Chand, r/o Village Kawas, P.O. Killar, 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. Rajeev Dharmani, Adv.

AWARD

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

"Whether the industrial dispute raised by the worker Shri Vipan S/O Shri Gian Chand R/O Village Kawas, P.O. Killar, 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-nil-received in the office on 31.10.2011 regarding his alleged illegal termination of service during August, 2004 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Shri Vipan S/O Shri Gian Chand R/O Village Kawas, P.O. Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division, Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. during August, 2004 without complying the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above 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 revealed that he had been initially engaged as daily wage beldar on muster roll basis in the year 1990 who continuously worked till 2005 with the respondent. Averments made in the petition further revealed that petitioner had worked for 160 days in each calendar year as per 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 been 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 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 one month's notice in writing stipulating therein reason for retrenchment besides no retrenchment compensation was paid to petitioner when respondent had been illegally terminated. It is also alleged that respondent had not followed the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act while disengaging petitioner from service. It is stated that petitioner is very poor who has no source of income besides after termination of the services of petitioner, petitioner had approached the respondent time and again but of no avail. The grievance of petitioner further remains that when the services of petitioner had been terminated, respondent/department had reengaged number of new workman from time to time and while doing so, respondent had not followed the principle of 'Last come, First go' envisaged under Section 25-G of the Act. It is further alleged that respondent/department had continuously retained junior to petitioner who are still in service 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 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 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 7314 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 provision of Section 25-F, Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and thus petitioner prays for setting aside oral order of termination/retrenchment of respondent in the year 2005. He further prayed for reinstatement in service w.e.f. year 2005 along-with back wages, seniority including continuity in service as petitioner as he had remained unemployed since the date of his illegal termination. The petitioner has also prayed that period of intermittent/fictional breaks deliberately given time and again during entire service of petitioner between 1990 to 2005 be counted 160 days continuous service and regularization of the service of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1998 having completed 8 years of service 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 1990 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. The allegations of fictional breaks given by respondent to the petitioner have been specifically 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 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, copy of demand notice Ex. PW1/B, copy of order dated 30.7.2015 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/D1 to Ex. RW1/D4 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 16.02.2016 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated nil qua his 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 the services of the petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. 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 1990 continuously worked till August, 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 1990 to August, 2004. He has also stated on oath that no 7316 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 August, 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, 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 August, 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 intermit 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 79 days in the year 1990, 178 days in 1991, 158 days in 1992, 143 days in 1993, 36 days in 1994, 20.5 days in 1995, 79 days in 1996, 198.5 days in 1997, 96.5 days in 1998, 108 days in 1999, 139 days in 2000, 105 days in 2001, 144 days in 2002, 110 days in 2003 and 109 days in 2004 and thus a total of his service in 1990 to 2004 in 15 years he had worked for 1703.5 days in his entire service period. Be it noticed that except the years 1990 and 1992 to 1996 & 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 109 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 1997 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 1990 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. counsel 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/D4. 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/D4 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. counsel for petitioner has contended that after petitioner's termination in August, 2004, he had remained unemployed and was not earning anything thereafter as such was entitled for full back wages. Repudiating the arguments of ld. counsel 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, 7318 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 petitieonr relief claimed for by him. On the other hand, ld. counsel 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 India7319 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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 award7320 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 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. counsel 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 the7321 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 7322 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 15 years and actually worked for 1703.5 days as per mandays chart on record and that the services of petitioner were disengaged in August, 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. 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. counsel 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 an 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 reinstatement7323 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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.

day of September, 2016.

Announced in the open Court today this 21st

(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. : 426/2015

Date of Institution : 11.09.2015

Date of Decision : 21.09.2016

Shri Nand Lal s/o Shri Bajeer Singh, r/o Village Kuthah, P.O. Dharwas, 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. Rajeev Dharmani, 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 Nand Lal S/O Shri Bajeer Chand, R/O Village Kuthah, P.O. Dharwas, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. before7324 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division, Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. vide demand notice dated 23.12.2011 regarding his alleged illegal termination of service during October, 1999 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Shri Nand Lal S/O Shri Bajeer Chand, R/O Village Kuthah, P.O. 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 October, 1999 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 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 revealed that he had been initially engaged as daily wage beldar on muster roll basis in the year 1989 who continuously worked till 1999 with the respondent. Averments made in the petition further revealed that petitioner had worked for 160 days in each calendar year as per 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 been 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 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 one month's notice in writing stipulating therein reason for retrenchment besides no retrenchment compensation was paid to petitioner when respondent had illegally been terminated. It is also alleged that respondent had not followed the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act while disengaging petitioner from service. It is stated that petitioner is very poor who has no source of income besides after termination of the services of petitioner, petitioner had approached the respondent time and again but of no avail. The grievance of petitioner further remains that when the services of petitioner had been terminated, respondent/department had reengaged number of new workman from time to time and while doing so, respondent had not followed the principle of 'Last come, First go' envisaged under Section 25-G of the Act. It is further alleged that respondent/department had continuously retained junior to petitioner who are still in service 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 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 year of 1999 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 thus petitioner prays for setting aside oral order of termination/retrenchment of respondent in the year 1999. He further prayed for reinstatement in service w.e.f. year 1999 along-with back wages, seniority including continuity in service as petitioner as he had remained unemployed since the date of his illegal termination. The petitioner has also prayed that period of intermittent/fictional breaks deliberately given time and again during entire service of petitioner between 1989 to 1999 be counted 160 days continuous service and regularization of the service of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1996 having completed 8 years of service 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 1989 who remained engaged till 1999 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. The allegations of fictional breaks given by respondent to the petitioner have been specifically 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 1999 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 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 order dated 30.7.2015 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/D1 to Ex. RW1/D4 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 16.02.2016 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated 23.12.2011 qua his termination of service during October, 1999 by respondent suffers from the vice of delay and laches as alleged? If so, its effect? . .OPP.

2. Whether termination of the services of the petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. October, 1999 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.

7326 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 1989 continuously worked till October, 1999 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 1989 to October, 1999. 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, 1999 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 had7327 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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, 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, 1999. 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 intermit 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 118 days in the year 1989, 117 days in 1990, 136 days in 1991, 152 days in 1992, 29 days in 1993, 202 days in 1994, 216 days in 1995, 100 days in 1996, 218 days in 1997, 188.5 days in 1998 and 125 days in 1999 and thus a total of his service in 1989 to 1999 in 11 years he had worked for 1601.5 days in his entire service period. Be it noticed that except the years 1989 to 1993, 1996 and 1999 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 1999 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 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 1997 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 7328 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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, 1999 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 1989 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. counsel 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/D4. 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/D4 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. counsel for petitioner has contended that after petitioner's termination in October, 1999, he had remained unemployed and was not earning anything thereafter as such was entitled for full back wages. Repudiating the arguments of ld. counsel 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 remained7329 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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. counsel 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 7330 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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 has7331 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 been pointed that termination of petitioner in this case took place on 1999 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. counsel 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 7332 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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/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 by7333 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 1601.5 days as per mandays chart on record and that the services of petitioner were disengaged in October, 1999 who worked as non skilled worker and had raised industrial dispute by issuance of demand notice after about 12 years i.e. demand notice was given on 23.12.2011. 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. counsel 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 an 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.

7334 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 28. File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.

Announced in the open Court today this 21st day of September, 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. : 432/2015

Date of Institution : 11.09.2015

Date of Decision : 21.09.2016

Shri Amarjeet s/o Shri Mangal Dass, r/o Village Parmar Bhatori, P.O. Kumar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

Executive Engineer, 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. Rajeev Dharmani, 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 Amarjeet S/O Shri Mangal Dass, R/O Village Parmar Bhatori, P.O. Kumar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. before the Executive Engineer, I&PH/H.P.P.W.D. Division Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. vide demand notice dated 16.12.2011 regarding his alleged illegal termination of service during August, 2004 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Shri Amarjeet S/O Shri Mangal Dass, R/O Village Parmar Bhatori, P.O. Kumar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, I&PH/H.P.P.W.D. Division 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 revealed that he had been initially engaged as daily wage beldar on muster roll basis in the year 1992 who continuously worked till 2005 with the respondent. Averments made in the petition further revealed that petitioner had worked for 160 days in each calendar year as per 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 been 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 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 one month's notice in writing stipulating therein reason for retrenchment besides no retrenchment compensation was paid to petitioner when respondent had been illegally terminated. It is also alleged that respondent had not followed the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act while disengaging petitioner from service. It is stated that petitioner is very poor who has no source of income besides after termination of the services of petitioner, petitioner had approached the respondent time and again but of no avail. The grievance of petitioner further remains that when the services of petitioner had been terminated, respondent/department had reengaged number of new workman from time to time and while doing so, respondent had not followed the principle of 'Last come, First go' envisaged under Section 25-G of the Act. It is further alleged that respondent/department had continuously retained junior to petitioner who are still in service 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 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 year of 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 thus petitioner prays for setting aside oral order of termination/retrenchment of respondent in the year 2005. He further prayed for reinstatement in service w.e.f. year 2005 along-with back wages, seniority including continuity in service as petitioner as he had remained unemployed since the date of his illegal termination. The petitioner has also prayed that period of intermittent/fictional breaks deliberately given time and again during entire service of petitioner between 1992 to 2005 be counted 160 days continuous service and regularization of the service of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2000 having completed 8 years of service 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. The allegations of fictional breaks given by respondent to the petitioner have been specifically 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 7336 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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, copy of demand notice Ex. PW1/B, copy of order dated 30.7.2015 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/D1 to Ex. RW1/D4 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 16.02.2016 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated 16.12.2011 qua his 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 the services of the petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. 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 : Yes7337 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 Issue No.3 : Discussed Issue No.4 : No

Relief. : Petition is partly allowed awarding compensation Rs.1,20,000/- 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 1994 continuously worked till August, 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 1994 to August, 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 August, 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, 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 7338 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 August, 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 intermit 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 115 days in the year 1994, 157.5 days in 1995, 51 days in 1996, 167 days in 1997, 164 days in 1998, 142 days in 1999, 149 days in 2000, 126 days in 2001, 124 days in 2002, 48.5 days in 2003 and 80 days in 2004 and thus a total of his service in 1994 to 2004 in 11 years he had worked for 1324 days in his entire service period. Be it noticed that except the years 1994 to 1996 and 1999 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 80 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 1997 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, 1999 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 1989 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. counsel 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/D4. 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/D4 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. counsel for petitioner has contended that after petitioner's termination in August, 2004, he had remained unemployed and was not earning anything thereafter as such was entitled for full back wages. Repudiating the arguments of ld. counel 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. counsel 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 be7340 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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 the7341 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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.

7342 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 counsel 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 of 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 case7343 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 1324 days as per mandays chart on record and that the services of petitioner were disengaged in August, 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 16.12.2011. 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. counsel 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 7344 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only) would be an 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.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty 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 21st day of September, 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. : 429/2015

Date of Institution : 11.09.2015

Date of Decision : 21.09.2016

Smt. Man Dei w/o Shri Nanak Chand, r/o Village Karoti, P.O. Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

Executive Engineer, 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. Rajeev Dharmani, 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. Man Dei W/O Shri Nanak Chand, R/O Village Karoti, P.O. Killar, Tehsil Panig, District Chamba, H.P. before the Executive Engineer, I&PH/H.P.P.W.D. Division, Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. vide demand notice dated-nil-received in the office on 22.11.2011 regarding her alleged illegal termination of service during September, 2004 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Smt. Man Dei W/O Shri Nanak Chand, R/O Village Karoti, P.O. Killar, Tehsil Panig, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, I&PH/H.P.P.W.D. Division, Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. during September, 2004 without complying the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above 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 revealed that she had been initially engaged as daily wage beldar on muster roll basis in the year 1996 who continuously worked till 2004 with the respondent. Averments made in the petition further revealed that petitioner had worked for 160 days in each calendar year as per 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 been 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 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 one month's notice in writing stipulating therein reason for retrenchment besides no retrenchment compensation was paid to petitioner when respondent had been illegally terminated. It is also alleged that respondent had not followed the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act while disengaging petitioner from service. It is stated that petitioner is very poor who has no source of income besides after termination of the services of petitioner, petitioner had approached the respondent time and again but of no avail. The grievance of petitioner further remains that when 7346 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 the services of petitioner had been terminated, respondent/department had reengaged number of new workman from time to time and while doing so, respondent had not followed the principle of 'Last come, First go' envisaged under Section 25-G of the Act. It is further alleged that respondent/department had continuously retained junior to petitioner who are still in service 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 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 year of 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 thus petitioner prays for setting aside oral order of termination/retrenchment of respondent in the year 2004. She further prayed for reinstatement in service w.e.f. year 2004 along-with back wages, seniority including continuity in service as petitioner as he had remained unemployed since the date of her illegal termination. The petitioner has also prayed that period of intermittent/fictional breaks deliberately given time and again during entire service of petitioner between 1996 to 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 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. The allegations of fictional breaks given by respondent to the petitioner have been specifically 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, copy7347 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 of order dated 30.7.2015 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/D1 to Ex. RW1/D4 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 16.02.2016 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated nil 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 the services of the petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. 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 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.1,20,000/- 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 7348 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 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 her.

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 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 136 days in the year 1996, 161 days in 1997, 110 days in 1998, 104.5 days in 1999,7349 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 107 days in 2000, 119 days in 2001, 90 days in 2002, 132 days in 2003 and 95 days in 2004 and thus a total of his service in 1996 to 2004 in 9 years he had worked for 1054.5 days in her entire service period. Be it noticed that except the years 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 95 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 1997 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. counsel 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/D4. 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/D4 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. counsel of petitioner, ld. Dy.

7350 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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, he 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 her. On the other hand, ld. counsel 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 Avon7351 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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 State7352 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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. counsel 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. counsel 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]7353 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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 7354 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 1054.5 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 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. counsel 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.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only) would be an 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 in7355 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty 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 21st day of September, 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. : 425/2015

Date of Institution : 11.09.2015

Date of Decision : 21.09.2016

Smt. Kamla Devi w/o Shri Bishan, r/o Village Ghosti, P.O. Karyas, 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. Rajeev Dharmani, Adv.

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

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

"Whether the industrial dispute raised by the worker Smt. Kamla Devi W/O Shri Bisha, R/O Village Ghosti, P.O. Karyas, 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 31.10.2011 regarding her alleged illegal termination of service during September, 2005 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Smt. Kamla Devi W/O Shri Bisha, R/O Village Ghosti, P.O. Karyas, 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 revealed that she had been initially engaged as daily wage beldar on muster roll basis in the year 1989 who continuously worked till 2005 with the respondent. Averments made in the petition further revealed that petitioner had worked for 160 days in each calendar year as per 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 been 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 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 one month's notice in writing stipulating therein reason for retrenchment besides no retrenchment compensation was paid to petitioner when respondent had been illegally terminated. It is also alleged that respondent had not followed the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act while disengaging petitioner from service. It is stated that petitioner is very poor who has no source of income besides after termination of the services of petitioner, petitioner had approached the respondent time and again but of no avail. The 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 while doing so, respondent had not followed the principle of 'Last come, First go' envisaged under Section 25-G of the Act. It is further alleged that respondent/department had continuously retained junior to petitioner who are still in service 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 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 year of 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 thus petitioner prays for setting aside oral order of termination/retrenchment of respondent in the year7357 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 2005. She further prayed for reinstatement in service w.e.f. year 2005 along-with back wages, seniority including continuity in service as petitioner as he had remained unemployed since the date of her illegal termination. The petitioner has also prayed that period of intermittent/fictional breaks deliberately given time and again during entire service of petitioner between 1989 to 2005 be counted 160 days continuous service and regularization of the service of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1997 having completed 8 years of service 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 2005 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. The allegations of fictional breaks given by respondent to the petitioner have been specifically 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 2005 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 order dated 30.7.2015 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/D1 to Ex. RW1/D4 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 16.02.2016 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated 31-10- 2011 qua her termination of service during September, 2005 by respondent suffers from the vice of delay and laches as alleged? If so, its effect? . .OPP.

7358 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 2. Whether termination of the services of the petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. 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 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.1,10,000/- 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. At the outset it is apt to mention here that mandays chart Ex. RW1/B shows that the services of the petitioner had been engaged in the year 1994 besides he had not worked w.e.f. 1989 to 1993 with the respondent whereas the claim of the petitioner remains that she had been engaged as daily waged beldar by the respondent on muster roll basis in the year 1989 as such pleading of claimant/petitioner being contrary to the documentary evidence cannot be looked into. Thus, this court is left with no option but to hold that the petitioner was engaged in 1994 only and not prior to it. 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 her.

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 Chamba7359 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 District and remained engaged from 1994 to September, 2005. 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, 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 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, 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 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 15 days in the year 1994, 84 days in 1996, 169.5 days in 1998, 153 days in 1999, 130 days in 2000, 148 days in 2001, 123 days in 2002, 131 days in 2003, 102 days in 2004 and 65.5 days in 2005 and thus a total of his service in 1994 to 2005 in 10 years he had worked for 1121 days in her entire service period. Be it noticed that except the years 1994, 1996 and 1999 to 2005 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 2005 the petitioner had merely worked for 65.5 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.

7360 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 1997 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, 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 1994 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. counsel 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/D4. 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/D4 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, 2005, she had remained unemployed and was not earning anything thereafter as such was entitled for full back wages. Repudiating the arguments of ld. counsel 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 agricultural7361 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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, he 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 her. On the other hand, ld. counsel 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 India7362 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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 award7363 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 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 2005 and the industrial dispute was raised after several years of retrenchment. Repudiating the argument by ld. counsel, ld. counsel 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. counsel 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 7364 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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/7365 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 10 years and actually worked for 1121 days as per mandays chart on record and that the services of petitioner were disengaged in September, 2005 who worked as non skilled worker and had raised industrial dispute by issuance of demand notice after about six years i.e. demand notice was given on 31.10.2011. 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. counsel 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.1,10,000/- (Rupees one lakh ten thousand only) would be an 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.1,10,000/- (Rupees one lakh ten thousand only) to the petitioner in lieu 7366 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 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.

day of September, 2016.

28. File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room Announced in the open Court today this 21st

(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. : 430/2015

Date of Institution : 11.09.2015

Date of Decision : 21.09.2016

Shri Bhag Singh s/o Shri Uttam Chand, r/o Village Karoti, P.O. Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

Executive Engineer, 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. Rajeev Dharmani, 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 Bhag Singh S/O Shri Uttam Chand, R/O Village Karoti, P.O. Killar, 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 dated-nil-received in the office on 22.11.2011 regarding his alleged illegal termination of service during September, 2004 suffers from delay and7367 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Shri Bhag Singh S/O Shri Uttam Chand, R/O Village Karoti, P.O. Killar, 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 revealed that he had been initially engaged as daily wage beldar on muster roll basis in the year 1994 who continuously worked till September, 2004 with the respondent. Averments made in the petition further revealed that petitioner had worked for 160 days in each calendar year as per 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 been 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 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 one month's notice in writing stipulating therein reason for retrenchment besides no retrenchment compensation was paid to petitioner when respondent had been illegally terminated. It is also alleged that respondent had not followed the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act while disengaging petitioner from service. It is stated that petitioner is very poor who has no source of income besides after termination of the services of petitioner, petitioner had approached the respondent time and again but of no avail. The grievance of petitioner further remains that when the services of petitioner had been terminated, respondent/department had reengaged number of new workman from time to time and while doing so, respondent had not followed the principle of 'Last come, First go' envisaged under Section 25-G of the Act. It is further alleged that respondent/department had continuously retained junior to petitioner who are still in service 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 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 thus petitioner prays for setting aside oral order of termination/retrenchment of 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 as he had remained unemployed since the date of his illegal termination. The petitioner has also prayed that period of intermittent/fictional breaks deliberately given time and again during entire service of petitioner between 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 to any other relief petitioner is entitled.

7368 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 1997 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. The allegations of fictional breaks given by respondent to the petitioner have been specifically 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 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, copy of demand notice Ex. PW1/B, copy of order dated 30.7.2015 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/D1 to Ex. RW1/D4 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 16.02.2016 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 the vice of delay and laches as alleged? If so, its effect? . .OPP.

2. Whether termination of the services of the petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. 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 entitled to? . .OPP.

. .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.90,000/- 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. At the outset it is apt to mention here that mandays chart Ex. RW1/B shows that the services of the petitioner had been engaged in the year 1997 besides he had not worked w.e.f. 1994 to 1996 with the respondent whereas the claim of the petitioner remains that he had been engaged as daily waged beldar by the respondent on muster roll basis in the year 1992 as such pleading of claimant/petitioner being contrary to the documentary evidence cannot be looked into. Thus, this court is left with no option but to hold that the petitioner was engaged in 1997 only and not prior to it. 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 1997 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, 7370 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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, 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 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 intermit 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 162 days in the year 1997, 140 days in 1998, 14 days in 1999, 53.5 days in 2000, 73 days in 2001, 85 days in 2002, 86 days in 2003 and 109 days in 2004 and thus a total of his service in 1997 to 2004 in 8 years he had worked for 722.5 days in his entire service period. Be it noticed that except the years 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 107 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 1997 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 August, 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 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. counsel 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/D4. 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/D4 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. 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. counsel 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 7372 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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. counsel 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) In7373 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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 is7374 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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. counsel 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 on7375 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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/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 7376 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 722.5 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. 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. counsel 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.90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand only) would be an 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.90,000/- (Rupees ninety 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.

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 21st day of September, 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. : 458/2015

Date of Institution : 29.10.2015

Date of Decision : 21.9.2016

Shri Mangi Lal s/o Shri Gurdial, r/o Village Kuthal, P.O. Sach, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

Executive Engineer, Killar Division, H.P.P.W.D. Division Killar, (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 Mangi Lal S/O Shri Gurdial, R/O Village Kuthal, P.O. Sach, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. before the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, H.P.P.W.D., Killar (Pangi) District Chamba, H.P. vide demand notice dated 28-05-2012 regarding his alleged illegal termination of services during August, 2004 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of services of Shri Mangi Lal S/O Shri Gurdial, R/O Village Kuthal, P.O. Sach, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, H.P.P.W.D., Killar (Pangi) District Chamba, H.P. during August, 2004, without7378 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 revealed that he had been initially engaged as daily wage beldar on muster roll basis in the year 1995 who continuously worked till August, 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 been 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 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 one month's notice in writing indicating the reason for retrenchment besides no retrenchment compensation was paid to petitioner when respondent had been illegally terminated. 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. The 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' envisaged under Section 25-G of the Act. It is further alleged that respondent/department had continuously retained junior to petitioner who are still in service namely Mohan Lal who appointed in 1990, 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 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 August, 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 August, 2004. He further prayed for reinstatement in service w.e.f. month of August, 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 1995 to August, 2004 be counted 160 days continuous service and regularization of the service of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2003 having completed 10 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 1998 who remained engaged till7379 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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, copy of demand notice dated Ex. PW1/B, copy of reply to the demand notice Ex. PW1/C, copy of order dated 26.8.2015 Ex. PW1/D 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/D1 to Ex. RW1/D4 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 16.2.2016 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated 28.5.2012 qua his 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.

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.90,000/- 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 1998 continuously worked till August, 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 1998 to August, 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 August, 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 also7381 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 August, 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 intermit 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 169 days in the year 1998, 134 days in 1999, 115 days in 2000, 116 days in 2001, 103 days in 2002, 78 days in 2003 and 76 days in 2004 and thus a total of his service in 1998 to 2004 in 7 years he had worked for 791 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 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. 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 August, 2004 even at the time when 7382 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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. counsel 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/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/D4 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. counsel for petitioner has contended that after petitioner's termination in August, 2004, he had remained unemployed and was not earning anything thereafter as such was entitled for full back wages. Repudiating the arguments of ld. counsel 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 petitieonr relief claimed for by him. On the other hand, ld. counsel 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 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 the7384 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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 dispute7385 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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. counsel 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 7386 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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/ 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 this7387 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 court factors which have weighed are that the petitioner in all remained engaged for about 7 years and actually worked for 791 days as per mandays chart on record and that the services of petitioner were disengaged in August, 2004 who worked as non skilled worker and had raised industrial dispute by issuance of demand notice after about seven years nine months i.e. demand notice was given on 28.05.2012. 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. counsel 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.90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand only) would be an 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.90,000/- (Rupees ninety 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 21st day of September, 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. : 327/2015

Date of Institution : 21.07.2015

Date of Decision : 21.9.2016

Shri Bhadar Singh s/o Shri Chuni Lal, r/o Village and Post Office Kironi Kothi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. . . Petitioner.

Versus

Executive Engineer, Killar Division, 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 Bhadar Singh S/O Shri Chuni Lal, R/O Village and Post Office Kironi Kothi, 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 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 Bhadar Singh S/O Shri Chuni Lal, R/O Village and Post Office Kironi Kothi, 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 revealed that he had been initially engaged as daily wage beldar on muster roll basis in the year 1989 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 been 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 for the applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. The grievance of petitioner remains that7389 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 respondent/department had terminated/disengaged petitioner from daily wage service orally without issuing one month's notice in writing indicating the reason for retrenchment besides no retrenchment compensation was paid to petitioner when respondent had been illegally terminated. 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. The 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' envisaged under Section 25-G of the Act. It is further alleged that respondent/department had continuously retained junior to petitioner who are still in service namely Mohan Lal who appointed in 1990, 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 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, 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 1989 to October, 2004 be counted 160 days continuous service and regularization of the service of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2000 having completed 10 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 1989 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 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 7390 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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/D1 to Ex. RW1/D4 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 03.12.2015 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated 06.10.2012 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.

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.1,75,000/- 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 1989 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 1989 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, 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 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 intermit 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.

7392 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 14. A bare glance on the mandays chart Ex. RW1/B would reveal that petitioner had worked for 28 days in the year 1989, 154 days in 1990, 45 days in 1991, 153 days in 1994, 149 days in 1995, 148 days in 1996, 166 days in 1997, 150 days in 1998, 157 days in 1999, 132 days in 2000, 84 days in 2001, 158 days in 2002, 142 days in 2003 and 107 days in 2004 and thus a total of his service in 1989 to 2004 in 14 years he had worked for 1773 days in his entire service period. Be it noticed that except the years 1989 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 107 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 1997 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 August, 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 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. counsel 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/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/D4 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. 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. counsel 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 petitieonr relief claimed for by him. On the other hand, ld. counsel 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

7394 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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 to7395 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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. counsel 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 the7396 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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 AIR7397 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 14 years and actually worked for 1773 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. counsel 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.1,75,000/- (Rupees one lakh seventy five thousand only) would be an 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.

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.1,75,000/- (Rupees one lakh 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 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 21st day of September, 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. : 331/2015

Date of Institution : 04.08.2015

Date of Decision : 21.9.2016

Shri Ram Chand s/o Shri Hoshiar Chand, 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 Chamba, H.P. . .Respondent7399 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 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 Shri Ram Chand S/O Shri Hoshiar Chand, R/O Village Mouch, P.O. Kironi Kothi, Tehsil Panig, District Chamba, H.P. before the Executive Engineer, I.&P.H./H.P.P.W.D. Division, Killar, Tehsil Panig, 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 Ram Chand S/O Shri Hoshiar Chand, R/O Village Mouch, P.O. Kironi Kothi, Tehsil Panig, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, I.&P.H./H.P.P.W.D. Division, Killar, Tehsil Panig, 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 revealed that he had been initially engaged as daily wage beldar on muster roll basis in the year 1989 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 been 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 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 one month's notice in writing indicating the reason for retrenchment besides no retrenchment compensation was paid to petitioner when respondent had been illegally terminated. 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. The 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' envisaged under Section 25-G of the Act. It is further alleged that respondent/department had continuously retained junior to petitioner who are still in service namely Mohan Lal who appointed in 1990, 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 7400 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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, 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 1989 to October, 2004 be counted 160 days continuous service and regularization of the service of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1999 having completed 10 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 1989 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 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, copy of demand notice dated Ex. PW1/B, copy of reply to the demand notice Ex. PW1/C, copy of order dated 27.5.2015 Ex. PW1/D 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 as7401 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 16.2.2016 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated 06.10.2011 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.

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.1,20,000/- 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 1989 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 7402 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 1989 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 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, 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, 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 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 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 28 days in the year 1989, 73 days in 1990, 114 days in 1992, 21 days in 1994, 138 days in 1995, 80 days in 1996, 59 days in 1997, 73 days in 1998, 132 days in 1999, 130 days in 2000, 110 days in 2001, 75 days in 2002, 134 days in 2003 and 105 days in 2004 and thus a total of his service in 1989 to 2004 in 14 years he had worked for 1272 days in his entire7403 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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 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 1989 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. counsel 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/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 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. 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. counsel 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, 7404 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 petitieonr relief claimed for by him. On the other hand, ld. counsel 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 the7405 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 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 of7406 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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. counsel 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]7407 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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 7408 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 14 years and actually worked for 1272 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 06.10.2011. 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. counsel 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.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only) would be an 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 in7409 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty 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.

day of September, 2016.

Announced in the open Court today this 21st

(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. : 335/2015

Date of Institution : 05.08.2015

Date of Decision : 24.10.2016

Shri Neel Kanth s/o Shri Dharam Dass, r/o Village and Post Office Rei, 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. I.S. Jaryal, AR

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

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

"Whether the industrial dispute raised by the worker Shri Neel Kanth S/O Shri Dharam Dass, R/O Village and Post Office Rei, 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 25.12.2011 regarding his alleged illegal termination of service during August, 2005 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Shri Neel Kanth S/O Shri Dharam Dass, R/O Village and Post Office Rei, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. during August, 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?"

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

4. 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 September, 1992 who continuously worked till August, 2005 with the respondent/department. 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 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 August, 2005 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 August, 2005 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 August, 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, the7411 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 petitioner prays for setting aside oral order of termination/retrenchment by the respondent in the month of August, 2005. He further prayed for reinstatement in service w.e.f. month of August, 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 1992 to August, 2005 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 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 1992 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 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 2005 he would have definitely raised industrial dispute immediately and that 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/D22 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 7412 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated 25.12.2011 qua his termination of service during August, 2005 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 w.e.f. August, 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 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.1,20,000/- 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 1992 who continuously worked till 2005 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 Chamba7413 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 District and remained engaged from 1992 to August, 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 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 August, 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 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 August, 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 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 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 75.5 days in the year 1992, 173 days in 1993, 164 days in 1994, 119 days in 1995, 152 days in 1996, 131 days in 1997, 106 days in 1998, 128 days in 1999, 54 days in 2000, 120 days in 2001, 59 days in 2002, 57 days in 2003, 59 days in 2004 and 60 days in 2005 and thus a total of his service in 1995 to 2005 in 14 years he had worked for 1428 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 2005 the petitioner had merely worked for 60 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.

7414 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 August, 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.3 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/D1 to Ex RW1/D22. 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/D22 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 August, 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 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 was7415 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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—

7416 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 "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 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

राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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 7418 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 14 years and actually worked for 1428 days as per mandays chart on record and that the services of petitioner were disengaged in August, 2005 who worked as non skilled worker and had raised industrial dispute by issuance of demand notice after about six years i.e. demand notice was given on 25.12.2011. It is also pertinent to mention here that petitioner on the date of filing claim petition was ageing 41 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, 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.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only) would be an 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.

23. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, the respondent is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty 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 24th day of October, 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. : 339/2015

Date of Institution : 05.08.2015

Date of Decision : 24.10.2016

Ms. Jaishree d/o Shri Janam Nath, r/o Village & Post Office Rei, 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. 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 Ms. Jaishree D/O Shri Janam Nath, R/O Village and Post Office Rei, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. before the7420 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division, Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. vide demand notice dated 11.11.2011 regarding her alleged illegal termination of service during September, 2003 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Ms. Jaishree D/O Shri Janam Nath, R/O Village and Post Office Rei, 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, 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.

August, 1997 to 1st

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 cum Work Inspector on muster roll basis in the month of September, 1997 who continuously worked till September, 2003 with the respondent/department. 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 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, 2003 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 September, 2007. In the end of month of September, 2003 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 September, 2003 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, 2003. She further prayed for reinstatement in service w.e.f. month of September, 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 September, 1997 to September, 2003 be counted 160 days continuous service and regularization of the service of petitioner7421 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 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 1997 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 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 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 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/D22 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 16.2.2016 for determination which are as under:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated 11.11.2011 qua her termination of service during September, 2003 by respondent suffers from the vice of delay and laches as alleged? If so, its effect? . .OPP.

7422 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 2. Whether termination of the services of petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. September, 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 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.

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 month of September, 1997 who continuously worked till 2003 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 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 September, 1997 to September, 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 of7423 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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, 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 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, 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 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 60 days in the year 1997, 138 days in 1998, 283 days in 1999, 227 days in 2001, 37 days in 2002 and 13 days in 2003 and thus a total of her service in 1997 to 2003 in 6 years she had worked for 758 days in her entire service period. Be it noticed that except the years 1997, 1998 and 2002 & 2003 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 2003 the petitioner had merely worked for 13 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 7424 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 September, 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.3 of the affidavit were retained whereas petitioner was senior from these co-workers having joined service in 1997 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/D22. 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/D22 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 September, 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 Apex7425 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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 by7426 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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 single7427 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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 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 7428 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 6 years and actually worked for 758 days as per mandays chart on record and that the services of petitioner were disengaged in September, 2003 who worked as non skilled worker and had raised industrial dispute by issuance of demand notice after about 8 years i.e. demand notice was given on 11.11.2011. It is also pertinent to mention here that petitioner on the date of filing claim petition was ageing 38 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 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 an 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.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.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) to the petitioner in lieu of7429 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 24th day October, 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. : 342/2015

Date of Institution : 05.08.2015

Date of Decision : 24.10.2016

Shri Bhan Chand s/o Shri Tara Chand, r/o Village and Post Office Rei, 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. 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 Bhan Chand S/O Shri Tara Chand, R/O Village and Post Office Rei, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. before the7430 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division, Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. vide demand notice dated 29.9.2010 regarding his alleged illegal termination of service during October, 2005 sufferes from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Shri Bhan Chand S/O Shri Tara Chand, R/O Village and Post Office Rei, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division, Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. during October, 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.

August, 1997 to 1st

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 January, 1992 who continuously worked till October, 2005 with the respondent/department. 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 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, 2005 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 September, 2007. In the end of month of October, 2005 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 August, 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 1992 to October, 2005 be counted 160 days continuous service and regularization of the service of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2002 having completed 8 years of7431 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 1992 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 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 2005 he would have definitely raised industrial dispute immediately and that 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/D22 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 16.2.2016 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated 29.9.2011 qua his termination of service during October, 2005 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 w.e.f. October, 2005 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged? . .OPP.

7432 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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.

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 1992 who continuously worked till 2005 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 1992 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 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, 2005 by oral order had engaged several co-workers who were junior to petitioner were retained in7433 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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, 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 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 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 141 days in the year 1992, 80 days in 1994, 16 days in 1995, 141 days in 1996, 108 days in 1997, 30 days in 1998, 102 days in 2002, 52 days in 2003, 94 days in 2004 and 43 days in 2005 and thus a total of his service in 1992 to 2005 in 10 years he had worked for 807 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 2005 the petitioner had merely worked for 43 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 7434 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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, 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.3 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/D1 to Ex RW1/D22. 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/D22 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, 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 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 would7435 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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 so7436 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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 between7437 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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 7438 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 10 years and actually worked for 807 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 five years i.e. demand notice was given on 29.9.2010. It is also pertinent to mention here that petitioner on the date of filing claim petition was ageing 44 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, 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 an 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 on7439 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 24th day of October, 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. : 379/2015

Date of Institution : 18.08.2015

Date of Decision : 24.10.2016

Shri Kesi Ram s/o Shri Ameer Chand, r/o Village and Post Office Rei, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

Executive Engineer, 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 Kesi Ram S/O Shri Ameer Chand, R/O Village and Post Office Rei, 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 dated 02.02.2012 regarding his alleged illegal termination of service during September, 1996 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Shri Kesi Ram S/O Shri Ameer Chand, R/O Village and Post Office Rei, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, I.&P.H./7440 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 H.P.P.W.D. Division, Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. during September, 1996 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.

August, 1997 to 1st

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, 1992 who continuously worked till September, 1996 with the respondent/department. 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 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, 1996 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 September, 2007. In the end of month of September, 1996 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, 1996 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, 1996. He further prayed for reinstatement in service w.e.f. month of September, 1996 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 1992 to September, 1996 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 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 merits7441 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 1996 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 1996 he would have definitely raised industrial dispute immediately and that 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/D22 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 16.2.2016 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated 02.02.2012 qua his termination of service during September, 1996 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 w.e.f. September, 1996 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.

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.

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 1992 who continuously worked till 1996 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 1992 to September, 1996. 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, 1996 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 also7443 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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, 1996. 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 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 133 days in the year 1992, 120 days in 1993, 49 days in 1994, 184 days in 1995 and 97 days in 2005 and thus a total of his service in 1992 to 1996 in 5 years he had worked for 583 days in his entire service period. Be it noticed that except the years 1992 to 1994 & 1996 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 2005 the petitioner had merely worked for 97 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 7444 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 any time after September, 1996 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 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/D1 to Ex RW1/D22. 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/D22 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, 1996, 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 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 in7446 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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 1996 and the industrial dispute was raised after several years of retrenchment. Repudiating the argument by ld. counsel,7447 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 7448 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 583 days as per mandays chart on record and that the services of petitioner were disengaged in September, 1996 who worked as non skilled worker and had raised industrial dispute by issuance of demand notice after about 15 years i.e. demand notice was given on 02.02.2012. It is also pertinent to mention here that petitioner on the date of filing claim petition was ageing 37 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, 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.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) would be an 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.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 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.

day of October, 2016.

Announced in the open Court today this 24th

(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. : 381/2015

Date of Institution : 18.08.2015

Date of Decision : 24.10.2016

Smt. Champa Kumari w/o Shri Tek Chand, r/o Village and Post Office Rei, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

. .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. Champa Kumari W/O Shri Tek Chand, R/O Village and Post Office Rei, 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 25.12.2011 regarding her alleged illegal termination of service during September, 2005 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Smt. Champa Kumari W/O Shri Tek Chand, R/O Village and Post Office Rei, 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.

7450 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 month of May, 1996 who continuously worked till September, 2005 with the respondent/department. 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 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, 2005 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, 2005 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 September, 2003 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, 2005. She further prayed for reinstatement in service w.e.f. month of September, 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 May, 1996 to September, 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 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 1996 who remained engaged till 2005 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 2005 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, 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/D22 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 16.2.2016 for determination which are as under:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated 25.12.2011 qua her 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 the services of petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. 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 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 : Yes7452 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 Issue No.3 : Discussed Issue No.4 : No

Relief. : Petition is partly allowed awarding compensation Rs.90,000/- 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 month of May, 1996 who continuously worked till 2005 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 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 May, 1996 to September, 2005. 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, 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 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 be7453 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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, 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 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 160 days in the year 1996, 162 days in 1997, 150 days in 1998, 46 days in 1999, 76 days in 2000, 142 days in 2001, 31 days in 2002, 68 days in 2003, 72 days in 2004 and 61 days in 2005 and thus a total of her service in 1996 to 2005 in 10 years she had worked for 968 days in her entire service period. Be it noticed that except the years 1998 to 2005 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 2005 the petitioner had merely worked for 61 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 September, 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.3 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.

7454 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 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. as reflected in Ex. RW1/D1 to Ex RW1/D22. 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/D22 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 September, 2005, 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 be7455 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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:-

7456 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 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. 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 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 10 years and actually worked for 968 days as per mandays chart on record and that the services of petitioner were disengaged in September, 2003 who worked as non skilled worker and had raised industrial dispute by issuance of demand notice after about 6 years i.e. demand notice was given on 25.12.2011. 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 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 7458 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 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.90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand only) would be an 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.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.90,000/- (Rupees ninety 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 24th day of October, 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. : 452/2015

Date of Institution : 29.10.2015

Date of Decision : 24.10.2016

Ms. Sunita d/o Shri Narbu 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. Killar (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 Ms. Sunita, D/O Shri Narbu 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., Killar (Pangi), District Chamba, H.P. vide demand notice dated 02-02-2012 regarding her alleged illegal termination of services during October, 1998 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of services of Ms. Sunita D/O Shri Narbu 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., Killar (Pangi), District Chamba, H.P. during October, 1998, 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 1996 who continuously worked till October, 1998 with the respondent/department. 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 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 7460 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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, 1998 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, 1998 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, 1998 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 year 1998. She further prayed for reinstatement in service w.e.f. month of October, 1998 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, 1998 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 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 1996 who remained engaged till 1998 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 1998 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,7461 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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/D22 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 16.2.2016 for determination which are as under:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated 02.02.2012 qua her termination of service during October, 1998 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 w.e.f. October, 1998 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.

6. 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.40,000/- 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 1996 who continuously worked till 1998 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 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, 1998. 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, 1998 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, 1998. 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 calling7463 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 164 days in the year 1996, 117 days in 1997 and 153 days in 1998 and thus a total of her service in 1996 to 1998 in 3 years she had worked for 434 days in her entire service period. Be it noticed that except the years 1997 & 1998 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 1998 the petitioner had merely worked for 153 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, 1998 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 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/D1 to Ex RW1/D22. These judgments/orders have been gone through which revealed that respondent had wrongly terminated the services of those claimant/petitioner 7464 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 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/D22 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, 1998, 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 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 reason7465 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 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 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 it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The7466 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 1998 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 3 years and actually worked for 434 days as per mandays chart on record and that the services of petitioner were disengaged in October, 1998 who worked as non skilled worker and had raised industrial dispute by issuance of demand notice after about 13 years i.e. demand notice was given on 02.02.2012. 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 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 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 7468 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) would be an 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.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.40,000/- (Rupees forty 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 24th day of October, 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. : 453/2015

Date of Institution : 29.10.2015

Date of Decision : 24.10.2016

Smt. Dharam Dei w/o Shri Sukh Dev, 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. Killar (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. Dharam Dei W/O Shri Sukh Dev, 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., Killar (Pangi), District Chamba, H.P. vide demand notice dated 02-020-2012 regarding her alleged illegal termination of services during October, 2003 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of services of Smt. Dharam Dei W/O Shri Sukh Dev, 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., Killar (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 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 1996 who continuously worked till October, 2003 with the respondent/ department. 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 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 7470 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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, 2003 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 28 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, 2003 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, 2003 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 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 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 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 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 is also contended that since the services of petitioner had not been terminated by the respondent,7471 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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/D22 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 16.2.2016 for determination which are as under:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated 02.02.2012 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 the services of petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. 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 entitled to? . .OPP.

7. 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.70,000/- 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 1994 who continuously worked till 2003 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 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 1994 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 correspondence calling7473 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 28 days in the year 1994, 79.5 days in 1996, 50 days in 1997, 105 days in 1999, 100 days in 2000, 111 days in 2001, 145 days in 2002 and 95 days in 2003 and thus a total of her service in 1994 to 2003 in 8 years she had worked for 713.5 days in her entire service period. Be it noticed that she 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 95 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, 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.3 of the affidavit were retained whereas petitioner was senior from these co-workers having joined service in 1994 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/D22. These judgments/orders have been gone through 7474 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 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/D22 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, 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 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 the7475 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 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 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 it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The7476 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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 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 8 years and actually worked for 713.5 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 8 years i.e. demand notice was given on 02.02.2012. It is also pertinent to mention here that petitioner on the date of filing claim petition was ageing 40 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 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 7478 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 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. 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.70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand only) would be an 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.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.70,000/- (Rupees seventy 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 24th day of October, 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. : 454/2015

Date of Institution : 29.10.2015

Date of Decision : 24.10.2016

Shri Man Chand s/o Shri Hoshiar Chand, r/o Village Shoon, P.O. Udeen, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

Executive Engineer, Killar Division, I.&P.H/H.P.P.W.D., Killar (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 Man Chand S/O Shri Hoshiar Chand, R/O Village Shoon, P.O. Udeen, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. before the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, I.P.H./H.P.P.W.D., Killar (Pangi), District Chamba, H.P. vide demand notice dated 26-06-2011 regarding his alleged illegal termination of services during October, 2005 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of services of Shri Man Chand S/O Shri Hoshiar Chand, R/O Village Shoon, P.O. Udeen, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, I.P.H./H.P.P.W.D., Killar (Pangi), District Chamba, H.P. during October, 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 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 September, 1995 who continuously worked till October, 2005 with the respondent/department. 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 in the petition revealed that the services of petitioner had interrupted by way of intermittent/artificial breaks given by the respondent/department 7480 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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, 2005 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, 2005 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, 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 1995 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 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 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 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 2005 he would have definitely raised industrial dispute immediately and that 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,7481 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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/D22 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 16.2.2016 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated 26.6.2011 qua his termination of service during October, 2005 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 w.e.f. October, 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 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.1,20,000/- 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 1995 who continuously worked till 2005 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 1995 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 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, 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 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, 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 making correspondence calling upon the petitioner to join service. This prima facie belies the stand taken by the respondent as7483 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 75.5 days in the year 1995, 54 days in 1996, 132 days in 1997, 139 days in 1998, 101.5 days in 1999, 128 days in 2000, 101 days in 2001, 116 days in 2002, 133 days in 2003, 106 days in 2004 and 28 days in 2005 and thus a total of his service in 1995 to 2005 in 11 years he had worked for 1114 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 2005 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. 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, 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.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/D22. These judgments/orders have been gone through which revealed that respondent had wrongly terminated the services of those claimant/petitioner 7484 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 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/D22 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, 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 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 reason7485 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 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. The7486 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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 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 11 years and actually worked for 1114 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 six years i.e. demand notice was given on 26.6.2011. It is also pertinent to mention here that petitioner on the date of filing claim petition was ageing 39 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 7488 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 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. 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.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only) would be an 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.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty 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 24th day of October, 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. : 460/2015

Date of Institution : 29.10.2015

Date of Decision : 24.10.2016

Smt. Neeta Kumari w/o Shri Sunveer, r/o Village Hillour, P.O. Sahali, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

Executive Engineer, Killar Division H.P.P.W.D. Killar (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. Neeta Kumari W/O Shri Sunveer, R/O Village Hillour, P.O. Sahali, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. before the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, H.P.P.W.D., Killar (Pangi), District Chamba, H.P. vide demand notice dated 27.8.2012 regarding her alleged illegal termination of services during September, 2005 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of services of Smt. Neeta Kumari W/O Shri Sunveer, R/O Village Hillour, P.O. Sahali, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, H.P.P.W.D., Killar (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 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 1996 who continuously worked till September, 2005 with the respondent/department. 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 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 7490 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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, 2005 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 28 persons who were junior to petitioner and joined service from 1st August, 1997 to 1st September, 2007. In the end of month of September, 2005 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 September, 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 September, 2005. She further prayed for reinstatement in service w.e.f. month of September, 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 September, 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 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 1996 who remained engaged till 2005 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 2005 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,7491 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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/D22 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 16.2.2016 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 September, 2005 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 w.e.f. 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 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.80,000/- 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 1996 who continuously worked till 2005 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 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, 2005. 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, 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 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, 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 making correspondence calling7493 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 111 days in the year 1996, 139 days in 1997, 115 days in 1998, 103 days in 2000, 86 ½ days in 2002, 95 days in 2003, 102 days in 2004 and 47 days in 2005 and thus a total of her service in 1996 to 2005 in 8 years she had worked for 798.5 days in her entire service period. Be it noticed that she 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 2005 the petitioner had merely worked for 47 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 September, 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.3 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/D1 to Ex RW1/D22. These judgments/orders have been gone through 7494 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 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/D22 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 September, 2005, 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 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 the7495 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 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 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 it7496 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 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 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 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 8 years and actually worked for 798.5 days as per mandays chart on record and that the services of petitioner were disengaged in September, 2005 who worked as non skilled worker and had raised industrial dispute by issuance of demand notice after about 7 years i.e. demand notice was given on 27.08.2012. It is also pertinent to mention here that petitioner on the date of filing claim petition was ageing 35 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 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 7498 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 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. 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.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) would be an 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.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 24th day of October, 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. 363/ 2016

Sh. Satpal Singh s/o Shri Pratap Singh, r/o Village Jol, P.O. Bhali, Tehsil Jawali, Distt. Kangra, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

The General Manager, M/S I.D. Sood Ispat Private Limited, V.P.O. Kandrori, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, H.P.

25-10-2016 Present: None for the petitioner. . .Respondent.

Sh. Neeraj Bhatnagar, adv. csl. for the respondent.

Power of attorney has been filed on behalf of respondent. Case called on 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.

___________

25-10-2016 Present: None for the petitioner.

Sh. Neeraj Bhatnagar, adv. csl. for the respondent

Case has been called again several times but none has appeared on behalf of petitioner. It is 2.40 P.M. None appearance of petitioner or his 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: 25-10-2016

(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. 364/ 2016

Sh. Rajneesh Pathania s/o Shri Janak Singh, r/o V.P.O. Makdoli, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, H.P. . .Petitioner.

The General Manager, M/S I.D. Sood Ispat Private Limited, V.P.O. Kandrori, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, H.P. . .Respondent. 25-10-2016 Present: None for the petitioner.

Sh. Neeraj Bhatnagar, adv. csl. for the respondent.

Power of attorney has been filed on behalf of respondent. Case called on 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.

__________

25-10-2016 Present: None for the petitioner.

Sh. Neeraj Bhatnagar, adv. csl. for the respondent

Case has been called again several times but none has appeared on behalf of petitioner. It is 2.35 P.M. None appearance of petitioner or his 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: 25-10-2016

(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. : 385/2015

Date of Institution : 18.8.2015

Date of Decision : 26.10.2016

Shri Mahajan Ram s/o Shri Man Chand, r/o Village and Post Office Rei, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Executive Engineer, 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 Mahajan Ram S/O Shri Man Chand, R/O Village and Post Office Rei, 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 dated 02.02.2012 regarding his alleged illegal termination of service during September, 2004 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Shri Mahajan Ram S/O Shri Man Chand, R/O Village and Post Office Rei, 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 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, 1995 who continuously worked till September, 2004 with the respondent/department. 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 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 1 s t August, 1997 to 1st September, 2007. In the end of month of 7502 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 1995 to September, 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 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 1996 who remained engaged till 1998 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 1998 he would have definitely raised industrial dispute immediately and that 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 of7503 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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/D22 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 16.2.2016 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated 2.2.2012 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 the termination of the services of petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. 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 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.70,000/- 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 1995 who continuously worked till 2004 with the respondent/department is not in dispute. Admittedly, petitioner was engaged without any 7504 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 1995 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 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 174 days in the year 1996, 107 days in 1997 and 49 days in 1998. It is evident from the Ex. PW1/B that petitioner has worked till 2004. This fact admitted by the respondent in Ex.

PW1/B and the petitioner had worked for 174 days in 1995, 107 days, 1996, 110 days in 1997, 96 days in 1998, 50 days in 1999, 110 days in 2001, 108 days in 2002 and 54 days in 2004 and thus a total of his service in 1995 to 2004 in 9 years he had worked for 863 days in his entire service period. Significantly, respondent has shown that petitioner to have worked only in the year 1996, 1997 and 1998 as is evident from Ex. RW1/B but falsity of the case of respondent gets surfaced from its own letter Ex. PW1/B written by Executive Engineer, Killar Division HPPWD Killar (Pangi) to Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, Chamba on 15.7.2013 in conciliation meeting which showed actual number of days and years in which the petitioner had worked. Thus, when the mandays chart does not reflect that petitioner to have worked after 1999, yet admission of respondent in its letter Ex. PW1/B dated 15.7.2013 cannot be ignored while adjudicating controversy inter se the parties. Be it noticed that except the years 1996 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 54 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 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 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/D22. 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 7506 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 be appointed in pursuance to awards/orders Ext. Rw1/D1 to Ex. RW1/D22 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 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 has7507 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 if7508 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 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. 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 thez 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 863 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 2.2.2012. 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 7510 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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.70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand only) would be an 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.70,000/- (Rupees seventy 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 26th day of October, 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. : 191/2013

Date of Institution : 15.11.2013

Date of decision : 26.10.2016

Smt. Meena Devi w/o Shri Devi Singh, r/o Village Thana Ropru, P.O. Drubbal, 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. Dinesh Singh, Advocate

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. Meena Devi, W/O Shri Devi Singh, R/O Village Thana Ropru, P.O. Drubbal, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. during March, 2000 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 her statement of claim.

3. Brief facts as set up in the claim petition reveal that the services of petitioner were engaged by the respondent/department as a daily wager in the year 2000 who worked under HPPWD Sub Division, Makrir but due to malafide intention and ulterior motive of the respondent/department, petitioner was not allowed to complete 240 days in each calendar year. It is alleged that the respondent had given petitioner artificial breaks from the year 2000 to 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 Govind Ram, Thakar Singh, Sarwan Kumar and others worked with the respondent/department without any break and their services had been regularized by the respondent/department. 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. Thus, the act and conduct of the respondent is alleged to be unfair labour practice which 7512 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 also violated Sections 25-(r) (a) 25-B, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947, 'the Act' for brevity).

4. The respondent contested petition, filed separate reply inter- alia taken preliminary objections qua non-maintainability, 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 April, 2000 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 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, which is not a party to the case. It has been emphatically denied that if fictional breaks had been 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 her verbal requests from time to time, she 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 her 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. The policy framed in Mool Raj Upadhaya's case is stated to be not applicable to the case of petitioner as in that case, one time benefit was given to the employees who had either completed 10 years of continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year as on 31.12.1993 or the employees who had rendered one or more year of service but had not completed 10 years of service up-to 31.12.1993. 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.

5. No rejoinder has been filed by 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 Rajeev Sharma 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 and closed the 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 22.4.2016 for determination:

1. Whether time to time termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent during the year April, 2000 to 2007 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged?

. .OPP.

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

. .OPR.

4. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of the 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. April, 2000 is not in dispute. It is the admitted case of petitioner that petitioner had worked since April, 2000 but she 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 per her own convenience as she of her own, used to not come on her duty besides she willfully absented several times from her duty as was evident from mandays chart. 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 her duties is devoid of merit 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 rather, it is projected to be case as if petitioner came of her own for work and left the work of her 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 Govind Ram, Thakar Singh, Sarwan Kumar, Mahender Singh, and Sh. Roshan Lal have been regularized by respondent and these persons were actually not given fictional breaks at any point of time.

12. A bare glance on mandays chart Ex. RW1/C would reveal that in the year 2000 petitioner had worked for 140 days, 186 days in 2001, 169 days in 2002, 175.5 days in 2003, 7514 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 169 days in 2004, 169.5 days in 2005, 168 days in 2006, 232 days in 2007, 366 days in 2008, 360 days in 2009, 359 days in 2010, 363 days in 2011, 356 days in 2012, 365 days in 2013, 359 days in 2014 and 224 days in 2015. It can be noticed that till 2000 petitioner has worked for less than 240 days whereas for other remaining years she had worked for more than 240 days. 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. Since respondent had not disputed to have engaged petitioner in April, 2000, she ought to have been regularized having continuously worked for about 9 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 her legitimate right for regularization till now. Although respondent department ipso facto does not dislodge petitioner from claiming her seniority and continuity in service from her initial engagement and thus fictional breaks in no manner would affect or eclipse him legitimate right of regularization in service.

13. Stepping into the witness box as PW1, petitioner has sworn detailed affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC stipulating therein that she had been engaged and disengaged between 2000 to 2007 by giving fictional breaks whereas the persons junior to him have been continuously engaged by department for the whole year who had completed more than 240 days in a calendar year. In cross-examination, she has admitted that she has been provided work more than 240 days of work after September, 2007 which means the dispute is only for the years 2000 to 2007 as stated in the affidavit. She 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. Respondent RW1 has admitted that petitioner has been engaged in the year 2000 who had not been issued any appointment letter. She has denied that petitioner had been deliberately given breaks in the years from 2000 to 2007 but she could not prove 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 she came and go of her own from duty cannot be accepted which manifestly appear to be afterthought to defeat the claim of petitioner. It is also evident from the cross-examination of the respondent Shri Rajeev Sharma (RW1) was suppressing truth from court by making statement that he could not tell if the workers shown in para no.3 of the claim of the petitioner were junior to petitioner forgetting that he was controlling officer and was expected to know factual matrix of the case. Significantly, he has admitted that some of them have been regularized which goes to show that ignoring the petitioner's claim junior persons were regularized and the petitioner had been given intermittent break causing her prejudice in regularization of her services. The irrespective fact that no such seniority list was produced by the respondent and it was revealed that persons whose names are mentioned in para no.3 of the claim petition were actually junior to the petitioner. As such it is held that petitioner has been superseded and juniors have been regularized and her services are to be regularized by ignoring fictional breaks who was deliberately given by the respondent. Moreover, RW1 has admitted that as per record no notice was given to petitioner for her absence from duty at any point of time. As such, the plea of fictional break given to the petitioner from the year 2000 to 2007 gets substantiated not only from documentary evidence on record but from testimony on oath of RW1 as well.

14. Although petitioner being in employment at the time of giving fictional breaks as stated above is duly established yet she cannot be deprived of her legitimate right to seek seniority as well as continuity in service form her date of joining along-with other persons working with him besides petitioner could not have been discriminated arbitrarily between similarly situated workmen. It would be pertinent to mention here that the persons junior to the petitioner mentioned in the claim petition had been regularized by the respondent/department7515 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 and they were not given any fictional break in 2000 to 2007 which further establishes arbitrary manner of working of respondent in the matter of giving fictional break. 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 2000 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, she is to be given benefit of seniority and continuity in service except back wages particularly when she 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

15. On the plea 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 her own and did not join her 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

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. Claim petition as petitioner was initially appointed with respndoent only PW1 has admitted in cross-examination that she 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 200 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 7516 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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, it is held that the petitioner was in continuous uninterrupted service with the respondent from the date of her 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 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.

Announced in the open Court today this 26th day of October, 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. : 205/2013

Date of Institution : 15.11.2013

Date of decision : 26.10.2016

Shri Besar Singh s/o Shri Mohan Singh, r/o Village Hiyun, P.O. Drabbal, 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. Dinesh Singh, Advocate

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 Besar Singh S/O Shri Mohan Singh, R/O Village Hiyun, P.O. Drabbal, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. during September, 2000 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 the services of petitioner were engaged by the respondent/department as a daily wager in the year 2000 who worked under 7518 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 HPPWD Sub Division, Makrir but due to malafide intention and ulterior motive of the respondent/department, petitioner was not allowed to complete 240 days in each calendar year. It is alleged that the respondent had given petitioner artificial breaks from the year 2000 to 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 Govind Ram, Thakar Singh, Sarwan Kumar and others worked with the respondent/department without any break and their services had been regularized by the respondent/department. 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. Thus, the act and conduct of the respondent is also alleged to be unfair labour practice which also violated Sections 25-(r) (a) 25-B, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947, 'the Act' for brevity).

4. The respondent contested petition, filed separate reply inter- alia taken preliminary objections qua non-maintainability, 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 September, 2000 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 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, which is not a party to the case. It has been emphatically denied that if fictional breaks had been 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. The policy framed in Mool Raj Upadhaya's case is stated to be not applicable to the present case of petitioner as in that case one time benefit was given to the employees who had either completed 10 years of continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year as on 31.12.1993 or the employees who had rendered one or more year of service but had not completed 10 years of service up-to 31.12.1993. 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.

5. No rejoinder has been filed by 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 Rajeev Sharma 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 and closed the 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 22.4.2016 for determination:

1. Whether time to time termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent during the year April, 2000 to 2007 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged? . .OPP.

2. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, to what services 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 the 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. September, 2000 is not in dispute. It is the admitted case of petitioner that petitioner had worked since September, 2000 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 per his own convenience, used to not come on his duty besides he willfully absented several times from his duty as was evident from mandays chart. 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 7520 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 Govind Ram, Thakar Singh, Sarwan Kumar, Mahender Singh, and Sh. Roshan Lal have been regularized by respondent and these persons were actually not given fictional breaks at any point of time.

12. A bare glance on mandays chart Ex. RW1/C would reveal that in the year 2000 petitioner had worked for 58 days, 183 days in 2001, 155 days in 2002, 136 days in 2003, 170 days in 2004, 149 days in 2005, 162.5 days in 2006, 228 days in 2007, 340 days in 2008, 347 days in 2009, 361 days in 2010, 361 days in 2011, 352 days in 2012, 363 days in 2013, 361 days in 2014 and 224 days in 2015. It can be noticed that till 2000 petitioner has worked for less than 240 days whereas for other remaining years he had worked for more than 240 days. 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. Since respondent had not disputed to have engaged petitioner in the year 2000, he ought to have been regularized having continuously worked for about 9 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.

13. 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 2000 to 2007 by giving fictional breaks whereas the persons junior to him 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 2000 to 2007 as stated in the affidavit. 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 2000 who had not been issued any appointment letter. he has denied that petitioner had been deliberately given breaks in the years from 2000 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 to defeat the claim of petitioner. It is also evident from the cross-examination of the respondent Shri Rajeev Sharma (RW1) was suppressing truth from court by making statement that he could not tell if the workers shown in para no.3 of the claim petition were junior to petitioner forgetting that he was controlling officer and was expected to know factual matrix of the case. Significantly, he has admitted that some of them have been regularized which goes to show that ignoring the petitioner's claim junior persons were regularized and the petitioner had been given intermittent break causing his prejudice in regularization of his services. The irrespective fact that no such seniority list was produced by the respondent and it was revealed that persons whose names are mentioned in para no.3 of the claim petition were actually junior to the petitioner. As such it is held that petitioner has been superseded and juniors have been regularized and his services are to be regularized by ignoring fictional breaks who was deliberately given by the respondent. 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 year 2000 to 20077521 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 gets substantiated not only from documentary evidence on record but from testimony on oath of RW1 as well.

14. Although petitioner being in employment at the time of giving 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. It would be pertinent to mention here that the persons junior to the petitioner mentioned in the claim petition had been regularized by the respondent/department and they were not given any fictional break in 2000 to 2007 which further establishes arbitrary manner of working of respondent in the matter of giving fictional break. 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 2000 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

15. On the plea 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

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. 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

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 200 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.

7522 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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, 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 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 have7523 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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.

Announced in the open Court today this 26th day of October, 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. : 99/2015

Date of Institution : 09.3.2015

Date of Decision : 28.10.2016

Shri Bhagat Ram s/o Shri Saran Dass, r/o Village & Post Office Rei, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

. .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 Bhagat Ram S/O Shri Saran Dass, r/o V.P.O. Rei, 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 18.08.2010 regarding his alleged illegal termination of service during September, 2003 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of7524 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 Shri Bhagat Ram S/O Shri Saran Dass, R/O V.P.O. Rei, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. during September, 2003 by the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division, Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, 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. In February, 2016 the corrigendum had been received from the appropriate Government whereby the reference has been partly modified in the aforesaid terms:

"In partial modification of this Department's Notification of even number dated 27-02- 2015, the date of termination of services of workman Shri Bhagat Ram S/O Shri Saran Dass, R/O V.P.O. Rai, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. may be read as "September, 2004" instead of "September, 2003", which was inadvertently recorded in the said notification."

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

August, 1997 to 1st

and joined service from 1 s t

4. 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 with the respondent/department. 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 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 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 of7525 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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.

5. 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 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 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 2003 he would have definitely raised industrial dispute immediately and that 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.

6. 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.

7. 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/D22 copy of orders/awards and closed the evidence.

8. 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.

7526 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 9. From the contentions raised, following issues were framed on 7.7.2015 and issue no.1 recasted and was framed on 26.10.2016 for determination which are as under:

1. Whether termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent during the year September, 2004 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.

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 : Yes

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

13. 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.

14. 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 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.

15. A bare glance on the mandays chart Ex. RW1/B would reveal that petitioner had worked for 127 days in the year 1994, 105 days in 1995, 194 days in 1996, 140 days in 1997, 78 days in 1998, 28 days in 1999, 37 days in 2000, 93 days in 2001, 50 days in 2002 and 100 days in 2003 and thus a total of his service in 1994 to 2004 in 10 years he had worked for 952 days in his entire service period. Be it noticed that except the years 1994, 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 2003 the petitioner had merely worked for 100 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 more particularly he has not worked even for a single day in the year 2004 as per mandays chart 7528 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 Ex. RW1/B 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.

16. 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 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 1994 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.

17. 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/D22. 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/D22 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.

18. 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 Transport7529 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 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 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.

19. 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 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.

7530 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 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 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 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 be7531 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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.

20. 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.

21. 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 disputes7532 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938

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 10 years and actually worked for 952 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 18.8.2010. It is also pertinent to mention here that petitioner on the date of filing claim petition was ageing 40 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, Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh v. Akhilesh Kumar Khare & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 3473.

22. In view of foregoing discussion, a lump-sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) would be an 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

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 in7533 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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.

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

day of October, 2016.

Announced in the open Court today this 28th

(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. : 108/2015

Date of Institution : 09.3.2015

Date of Decision : 28.10.2016

Shri Banka Ram s/o Shri Baldev, r/o Village and Post Office Rei, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division Killar (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.

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

"Whether the industrial dispute raised by the worker Shri Banka Ram S/O Shri Baldev, R/O V.P.O. Rei, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. before the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division Killar, Tehsil Pangi, Distrit H.P. vide demand notice dated 18- 08-2010 regarding his alleged illegal termination of service during September, 2004 suffers from delay and laches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Shri Banka Ram S/O Shri Baldev, R/O V.P.O. Rei, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division Killar, Tehsil Pangi, Distrit H.P. during September, 2004 by the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division, Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, 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. In February, 2016 the corrigendum had been received from the appropriate Government whereby the reference has been partly modified in the aforesaid terms:

"In partial modification of this Department's notification of even number dated 27-02- 2015, "September, 2004" i.e. date of termination from service" be substituted by "October, 2005" which was inadvertently recorded in the said notification".

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

August, 1997 to 1st

4. 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 April, 1995 who continuously worked till October, 2005 with the respondent/department. 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 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 September, 2007. In the end of month of October, 2005 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 had7535 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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, 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 1994 to September, 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 judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and to any other relief petitioner is entitled.

5. 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 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 2005 he would have definitely raised industrial dispute immediately and that 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.

6. 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.

7. 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-1, copy of letter dated 15.5.20102, Ex. PW1/B-2 copy of manday chart of the petitioner Ex. PW1/C to PW1/M 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 7536 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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/D22 copy of orders/awards and closed the evidence.

8. 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.

9. From the contentions raised, following issues were framed on 7.7.2015 and issue no.1 recasted and was framed on 26.10.2016 for determination which are as under:

1. Whether termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent during the year October, 2005 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.

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 : Yes

Relief. : Petition is partly allowed awarding compensation Rs.50,000/- per operative part of 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. Relationship of petitioner having been engaged as daily waged beldar by respondent on muster roll basis in the month of April, 1995 who continuously worked till 2005 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 job7537 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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.

13. 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 1995 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 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, 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 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.

14. 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 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 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.

15. A bare glance on the mandays chart Ex. PW1/B-2 would reveal that petitioner had worked for 123 days in the year 1996, 45 days in 1998, 28 days in 1999, 48 days in 2001, 132 days in 2002, 83 days in 2003, 100 days in 2004 and 80 days in 2005 and thus a total of his service in 1995 to 2005 in 8 years he had worked for 639 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 7538 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 80 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.

16. 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, 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.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.

17. 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/D22. 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/D22 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.

18. Ld. Authorized Representative 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 through7539 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 from 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.

19. 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 Avon7540 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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 State7541 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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.

20. 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.

21. 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] 7542 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 8 years and actually worked for 639 days as per mandays chart RW1/B 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 five years i.e. demand notice was given on 18.8.2010. It is also pertinent to mention here that petitioner on the date of filing claim petition was ageing 40 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, Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh v. Akhilesh Kumar Khare & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 3473.

22. In view of foregoing discussion, a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) would be an 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.

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.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 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.

day of October, 2016.

Announced in the open Court today this 28th

(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. : 431/2015

Date of Institution : 11.09.2015

Date of Decision : 28.10.2016

Shri Sujan Singh s/o Shri Bajeer Chand, r/o Village Tatan, P.O. Karyas, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

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

7544 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 Reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

For the Petitioner : Sh. Rajeev Dharmani, 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 Sujan Singh S/O Shri Bajeer Chand, R/O Village Tatan, P.O. Karyas, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. before the Executive Engineer, I&PH/H.P.P.W.D. Division, Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. vide demand notice dated 07.08.2012 regarding his alleged illegal termination of service during November, 1997 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Shri Sujan Singh S/O Shri Bajeer Chand, R/O Village Tatan, P.O. Karyas, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, I&PH/H.P.P.W.D. Division, Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. during November, 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 revealed that he had been initially engaged as daily wage beldar on muster roll basis in the year 1996 who continuously worked till 2005 with the respondent. Averments made in the petition further revealed that petitioner had worked for 160 days in each calendar year as per 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 been 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 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 one month's notice in writing stipulating therein reason for retrenchment besides no retrenchment compensation was paid to petitioner when respondent had been illegally terminated. It is also alleged that respondent had not followed the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act while disengaging petitioner from service. It is stated that petitioner is very poor who has no source of income besides after termination of the services of petitioner, petitioner had approached the respondent time and again but of no avail. The grievance of petitioner further remains that when the services of petitioner had been terminated, respondent/department had reengaged number of new workman from time to time and while doing so, respondent had not followed the principle of 'Last come, First go' envisaged under Section 25-G of the Act. It is further alleged that respondent/department had continuously retained junior to petitioner who are still in service 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 him and the at the same time, no7545 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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 thus petitioner prays for setting aside oral order of termination/retrenchment of respondent in the year 2005. He further prayed for reinstatement in service w.e.f. year 2005 along-with back wages, seniority including continuity in service as petitioner as he had remained unemployed since the date of his illegal termination. The petitioner has also prayed that period of intermittent/fictional breaks deliberately given time and again during entire service of petitioner between 1996 to 2005 be counted 160 days continuous service and regularization of the service of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1998 having completed 8 years of service 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 1997 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. The allegations of fictional breaks given by respondent to the petitioner have been specifically 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 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, copy of order dated 30.7.2015 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/D1 to Ex. RW1/D4 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.

7546 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 8. From the contentions raised, following issues were framed on 16.02.2016 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated 07.08.2012 qua his termination of service during November, 1997 by respondent suffers from the vice of delay and laches as alleged? If so, its effect? . .OPP.

2. Whether termination of the services of the petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. November, 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? . .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 : Discussed

Issue No.2 : No

Issue No.3 : No

Issue No.4 : Yes

Relief. : Claim petition dismissed per operative part of the Award.

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

ISSUES NO.1 TO 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. Stepping into witness box as PW1 petitioner has proved on record his affidavit Ex. PW1/A stipulating therein that he had worked on muster roll on daily wage basis beldar without any appointment letter from 1996 till October, 2004 and in between services of petitioner had been engaged and reengaged by giving fictional breaks so that he did not complete 160 days preceding 12 months as well as for regularization of his services. Before accepting the statement made by the petitioner, it would relevant to refer to mandays chart prepared by Executive Engineer, Killar Division, HPPWD Killar (Pangi) which shows that petitioner had worked from 1997 to 2004. A bare glance at the mandays chart would reveal that petitioner had worked for 107 days in the year 2004 and prior to it 135 days in the year 2003 but he had not continuously worked for 160 days as in the year 2003 he had worked for 135 days in the next year he remained without any work from November to May, 2004 and he was reengaged for period of 107 days i.e. 26 days in June, 31 days in July, 28 days in August and 22 days in September. This evidence goes to show that the petitioner had not factually worked continuously for 160 days as claimed by him. Contrary to the claim of the petitioner as well7547 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 as his affidavit Ex. PW1/A which shows that petitioner had worked from 1996 to 2004, the reference received from appropriate government shows that petitioner had worked till November, 1997. If the petitioner had worked till 1997 how could he be shown to have worked till 2004, which falsified plea of petitioner and for said reason the reference is answered in negative because petitioner till the date of order of petition, petitioner had not prayed for issuance for corrigendum and appears to be working till 2004 and not 1997. Delay of seven years in filing the demand notice cannot be stated to be fatal so as to negate the claim of petitioner in view of various judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in which it has been held that delay in raising demand notice would not affect the right of compensation as this court has to look into merits of this case. Since mandays chart Ex. RW1/B manifestly shows that petitioner had not worked for 160 days in preceding 12 months and his services had been terminated, there was no requirement of issuance of any notice envisaged under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, it is held that there is no violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act more particularly provisions of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act was not attracted in this case. Similarly, provisions of Sections 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, could not be stated to have been violated as it has not been proved by the petitioner and similar provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H too have not been proved by petitioner.

12. Ld. Dy. D.A. for respondent has pointed out that petitioner has claimed to have worked till 1997 and his plea gets falsified from mandays chart Ex. RW1/B. He has also contended that there could not be explanation of delay as the petitioner continued to work much after 1997. As such, no conclusion can be drawn for holding delay and laches rather petitioner is held to have worked much after 1997 and that his claim that notice for termination was issued much late is of no consequence on the merits of case and for similar reasons, petition is held to be not maintainable. Issue no.1 is decided as discussed, issues no.2 and 3 are answered negative and issue no.4 is answered in affirmative in favour of respondent and against the petitioner.

RELIEF

13. As a sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, the instant claim petition is dismissed. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

14. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

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

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

Announced in the open Court today this 28th day of October, 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. : 324/2015

Date of Institution : 21.07.2015

Date of Decision : 28.10.2016

7548 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 Shri Sher Chand s/o Shri Amar Chand, r/o Village and Post Office Purthi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

Executive Engineer, 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. 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 Sher Chand S/O Shri Amar Chand, R/O Village and Post Office Purthi, 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 dated-nil-received on 08.05.2012 regarding his alleged illegal termination of services during September, 2004 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Shri Sher Chand S/O Shri Amar Chand, R/O Village and Post Office Purthi, 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 revealed that he had been initially engaged as daily wage beldar on muster roll basis in the year 1998 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 been 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 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 one month's notice in writing indicating the reason for retrenchment besides no retrenchment compensation was paid to petitioner when respondent had been illegally terminated. 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 respondent7549 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 time and again but of no avail. The 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' envisaged under Section 25-G of the Act. It is further alleged that respondent/department had continuously retained junior to petitioner who are still in service namely Mohan Lal who appointed in 1998, Chunku Ram in 2000, Budhi Ram in 2003, Dev Raj in 2007, Sher Singh in 2011 and Raj Kumar in 2011. 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, 2003 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 1998 to October, 2004 be counted 160 days continuous service and regularization of the service of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2006 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 1999 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 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 7550 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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/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 30.9.2015 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice nil 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.

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 : Discussed

Issue No.2 : No

Issue No.3 : No

Issue No.4 : Yes

Relief. : Claim petition dismissed per operative part of the Award.

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

ISSUES NO.1 TO 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. At the outset, it is relevant to mention here that the petitioner has failed to establish having worked for 160 days continuously preceding his termination even while working in tribal area of Killar (Pangi). Similarly, petitioner has also failed to establish that junior persons as stipulated in para no.10 of claim petition to have been retained in service and the services of petitioner were disengaged in violation of the provisions of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the petitioner has not produced on record any seniority list establishing that the workers mentioned in para no.10 of claim petition were engaged in particular years as mentioned and they continued to worked till the termination of the services of petitioner. Equally important to mention here is that petitioner has failed to establish that the juniors were retained and services of petitioner had been terminated. As such, there could be no requirement of issuance of notice for reemployment of petitioner and therefore it cannot be stated that the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act had been violated. To appreciate the pleas of petitioner, it would be relevant to through the evidence led by petitioner in support of his claim.

12. Stepping into witness box as PW1, petitioner has deposed on oath to have worked for 160 days in each year he remained engaged which is contrary to stipulation made in mandays chart Ex. RW1/B showing that petitioner had worked from 1999 till 2004 and in the year 2004 he has merely worked for 97 days in the months of June, July, August and September and prior to it, he was not engaged by the respondent in the months of January to April however he was engaged in May and when worked for 30 days, 26 days in June and in August 29 days aggregating to 85 days in the year 2003. It can be seen from this mandays chart that petitioner had not actually worked 160 days in preceding 12 months of his termination as was required so as to establish applicability of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act and consequently violation of Section 25-F for having not issued any notice by the respondent before terminating his services. Although, petitioner on oath has maintained that no notice was issued by the respondent while terminating his services but it was not the requirement of the law as petitioner had never worked for 160 days preceding his date of termination although in different years he had worked for number of days but those days could not be counted for the purpose of 160 days as break period exist in between. The petitioner has denied in cross- examination that he had left the job of his own but he has not established to have worked for 160 days as stated above in the tribal area as was required under law. The plea of abandonment of the termination ceases to have significance as no notice was required to be issued by the respondent. As such, it may not be erroneous to conclude that respondent was not required to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F by issuance of legal notice before terminating the services of petitioner.

13. In so far in the plea of the petitioner having been removed from service by the respondent and retention of juniors or reengaging them to so that they completed 160 days is concerned, this plea is also not proved in as much as the petitioner has failed to produce any seniority list by which it could be established that Mohan Lal, Chunku Ram, Budhi Ram, Dev Raj, Sher Singh and Raj Kumar were appointed in the years 1998, 2000, 2003, 2007 and 2011 respectively. In cross-examination of petitioner he has denied that no juniors to him have been retained but the plea was taken by petitioner has not been established by reliable evidence and uncorroborated testimony of the petitioner cannot be hold that the respondent had retained juniors and regularized them in service by allowing them to complete 160 days in tribal area of Pangi. No witness had been examined by petitioner to prove that junior to petitioner was engaged after termination of services of petitioner. At the same time, no documentary evidence which would further corroborate or support the plea of the petitioner has been brought on record. Ex. RW1/C1 to C6 are judgments vide which those petitioners were engaged but close scrutiny of these documents revealed that these persons had actually worked for more than 160 days in preceding 12 months prior to termination and the respondent while terminating the service of petitioner failed 7552 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 to issue any notice envisaged under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act which is held to have not proved since it has not been established by petitioner that any junior person has been retained in services.

14. Be it noticed that there is no merit in the allegation of the petitioner that respondent had violated the provisions of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act irrespective of the fact that there is no requirement of the law that the petitioner should have worked 160 days yet he was not absolved of responsibility to establish that some junior persons were retained and he was not offered for reengagement. Accordingly, it is held that the respondent had not violated the provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act as principle of 'Last come First go' was not proved to have been not followed. Since none of the provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H have been violated by the respondent, this Tribunal is left with no option but answer the issues no.2 and 3 in negative.

15. On the point of delay in issuance of legal notice to the respondent, it would be relevant to mention here that the services of petitioner had been terminated in 2004 whereas petitioner had issued legal notice on 8.5.2012 which goes to suggest that petitioner had issued legal notice and there was no explanation of delay. Keeping in view the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments wherein it has been held that delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely an important circumstance to be considered by court but not fatal to claim of petitioner and court has to keep in mind while exercising discretion as has also been observed 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 done and the delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute. But to my mind petitioner has not proved violation of any of the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act as stated above and for that reason he would not be entitled for relief of reinstatement as claimed by the petitioner or even for lump compensation as has been awarded by this Tribunal in various cases of similar nature. The petition is held to be not maintainable as petitioner has failed to establish any of the provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act who is also held not entitled even for lump sum compensation in lieu of service rendered by him to the respondent. Issues no.1 is decided as discussed whereas issues no. 2 and 3 are answered in negative and issue no.4 answered in affirmative. All these issues are decided against the petitioner and in favour of respondent.

RELIEF

16. As a sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, the instant claim petition is dismissed. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

17. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

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

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

day of October, 2016.

Announced in the open Court today this 28th

(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. : 304/2015

Date of Institution : 16.07.2015

Date of Decision : 28.10.2016

Shri Madan Lal s/o Shri Manak Chand, r/o Village and Post Office Purthi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

Executive Engineer, 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. 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 Madan Lal S/O Shri Manak Chand, R/O Village and Post Office Purthi, 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-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 Madan Lal S/O Shri Manak Chand, R/O Village and Post Office Purthi, 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 revealed that he had been initially engaged as daily wage beldar on muster roll basis in the year 1999 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 been interrupted by way of 7554 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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 one month's notice in writing indicating the reason for retrenchment besides no retrenchment compensation was paid to petitioner when respondent had been illegally terminated. 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. The 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' envisaged under Section 25-G of the Act. It is further alleged that respondent/department had continuously retained junior to petitioner who are still in service namely Mohan Lal who appointed in 1999, Chunku Ram in 2000, Budhi Ram in 2003, Dev Raj in 2004, Sher Singh in 2011 and Raj Kumar in 2011. 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, 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 1999 to October, 2005 be counted 160 days continuous service and regularization of the service of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2007 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 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 2005 he would have definitely raised industrial dispute immediately and that after seven years petitioner is stated7555 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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 30.9.2015 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 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. 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 : Discussed

Issue No.2 : No

Issue No.3 : No

Issue No.4 : Yes

Relief. : Claim petition dismissed per operative part of the Award.

ISSUES NO.1 TO 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. At the outset, it is relevant to mention here that the petitioner has failed to establish having worked for 160 days continuously preceding his termination even while working in tribal area of Killar (Pangi). Similarly, petitioner has also failed to establish that junior persons as stipulated in para no.10 of claim petition to have been retained in service and the services of petitioner were disengaged in violation of the provisions of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the petitioner has not produced on record any seniority list establishing that the workers mentioned in para no.10 of claim petition were engaged in particular years as mentioned and they continued to worked till the termination of the services of petitioner. Equally important to mention here is that petitioner has failed to establish that the juniors were retained and services of petitioner had been terminated. As such, there could be no requirement of issuance of notice for reemployment of petitioner and therefore it cannot be stated that the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act had been violated. To appreciate the pleas of petitioner, it would be relevant to through the evidence led by petitioner in support of his claim.

12. Stepping into witness box as PW1, petitioner has deposed on oath to have worked for 160 days in each year he remained engaged which is contrary to stipulation made in mandays chart Ex. RW1/B showing that petitioner had worked from 2000 till 2004 and in the year 2004 he has merely worked for 104 days in the months of June, July, August and September and prior to it, he was not engaged by the respondent in the months of January to April however he was engaged in May and when worked for 26 days, 25 days in September aggregating to 51 days in the year 2003. It can be seen from this mandays chart that petitioner had not actually worked 160 days in preceding 12 months of his termination as was required so as to establish applicability of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act and consequently violation of Section 25-F for having not issued any notice by the respondent before terminating his services. Although, petitioner on oath has maintained that no notice was issued by the respondent while terminating his services but it was not the requirement of the law as petitioner had never worked for 160 days preceding his date of termination although in different years he had worked for number of days but those days could not be counted for the purpose of 160 days as break period exist in between. The petitioner has denied in cross-examination that he had left the job of his own but he has not established to have worked for 160 days as stated above in the tribal area as was required under law. The plea of abandonment of the termination ceases to have significance as no notice was required to be issued by the respondent. As such, it may not be erroneous to conclude that respondent was not required to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F by issuance of legal notice before terminating the services of petitioner.

13. In so far in the plea of the petitioner having been removed from service by the respondent and retention of juniors or reengaging them to so that they completed 160 days is concerned, this plea is also not proved in as much as the petitioner has failed to produce any seniority list by which it could be established that Mohan Lal, Chunku Ram, Budhi Ram, Dev Raj, Sher Singh and Raj Kumar were appointed in the years 1999, 2000, 2003, 2007 and 2011 respectively. In cross-examination of petitioner he has denied that no juniors to him have been retained but the plea was taken by petitioner has not been established by reliable evidence and uncorroborated testimony of the petitioner cannot be hold that the respondent had retained juniors7557 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 and regularized them in service by allowing them to complete 160 days in tribal area of Pangi. No witness had been examined by petitioner to prove that junior to petitioner was engaged after termination of services of petitioner. At the same time, no documentary evidence which would further corroborate or support the plea of the petitioner has been brought on record. Ex. RW1/C1 to C6 are judgments vide which those petitioners were engaged but close scrutiny of these documents revealed that these persons had actually worked for more than 160 days in preceding 12 months prior to termination and the respondent while terminating the service of petitioner failed to issue any notice envisaged under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act which is held to have not proved since it has not been established by petitioner that any junior person has been retained in services.

14. Be it noticed that there is no merit in the allegation of the petitioner that respondent had violated the provisions of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act irrespective of the fact that there is no requirement of the law that the petitioner should have worked 160 days yet he was not absolved of responsibility to establish that some junior persons were retained and he was not offered for reengagement. Accordingly, it is held that the respondent had not violated the provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act as principle of 'Last come First go' was not proved to have been not followed. Since none of the provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H have been violated by the respondent, this Tribunal is left with no option but answer the issues no.2 and 3 in negative.

15. On the point of delay in issuance of legal notice to the respondent, it would be relevant to mention here that the services of petitioner had been terminated in 2004 whereas petitioner had issued legal notice on 18.4.2012 which goes to suggest that petitioner had issued legal notice and there was no explanation of delay. Keeping in view the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments wherein it has been held that delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely an important circumstance to be considered by court but not fatal to claim of petitioner and court has to keep in mind while exercising discretion as has also been observed 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 done and the delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute. But to my mind petitioner has not proved violation of any of the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act as stated above and for that reason he would not be entitled for relief of reinstatement as claimed by the petitioner or even for lump compensation as has been awarded by this Tribunal in various cases of similar nature. The petition is held to be not maintainable as petitioner has failed to establish any of the provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act who is also held not entitled even for lump sum compensation in lieu of service rendered by him to the respondent. Issues no.1 is decided as discussed whereas issues no. 2 and 3 are answered in negative and issue no.4 answered in affirmative. All these issues are decided against the petitioner and in favour of respondent.

RELIEF

16. As a sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, the instant claim petition is dismissed. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

17. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

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

7558 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 19. File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.

Announced in the open Court today this 28th day of October, 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. : 279/2015

Date of Institution : 13.07.2015

Date of Decision : 28.10.2016

Shri Ram Kumar s/o Shri Lekh Chand, r/o Village and Post Office Dharwas, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. . .Petitioner.

Versus

Executive Engineer, 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. 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 Ram Kumar S/o Shri Lekh Chand, R/O Village and Post Office Dharwas, 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 29.11.2011 regarding his alleged illegal termination of service during October, 2003 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Shri Ram Kumar S/o Shri Lekh Chand, R/O Village and Post Office Dharwas, 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 revealed that he had been initially engaged as daily wage beldar on muster roll basis in the year 1994 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 been 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 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 one month's notice in writing indicating the reason for retrenchment besides no retrenchment compensation was paid to petitioner when respondent had been illegally terminated. 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. The 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' envisaged under Section 25-G of the Act. It is further alleged that respondent/department had continuously retained junior to petitioner who are still in service namely Mohan Lal who appointed in 1994, 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 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, 2003 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 1994 to October, 2003 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 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 7560 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 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 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/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 30.9.2015 for determination:

1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated 29.11.2011 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. 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 : Discussed

Issue No.2 : No7561 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 Issue No.3 : No Issue No.4 : Yes

Relief. : Claim petition dismissed per operative part of the Award.

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

ISSUES NO.1 TO 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. At the outset, it is relevant to mention here that the petitioner has failed to establish having worked for 160 days continuously preceding his termination even while working in tribal area of Killar (Pangi). Similarly, petitioner has also failed to establish that junior persons as stipulated in para no.10 of claim petition to have been retained in service and the services of petitioner were disengaged in violation of the provisions of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the petitioner has not produced on record any seniority list establishing that the workers mentioned in para no.10 of claim petition were engaged in particular years as mentioned and they continued to worked till the termination of the services of petitioner. Equally important to mention here is that petitioner has failed to establish that the juniors were retained and services of petitioner had been terminated. As such, there could be no requirement of issuance of notice for reemployment of petitioner and therefore it cannot be stated that the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act had been violated. To appreciate the pleas of petitioner, it would be relevant to through the evidence led by petitioner in support of his claim.

12. Stepping into witness box as PW1, petitioner has deposed on oath to have worked for 160 days in each year he remained engaged which is contrary to stipulation made in mandays chart Ex. RW1/B showing that petitioner had worked from 1994 till 2003 and in the year 2003 he has merely worked for 108 days in the months of June, July, August, September and October and prior to it, he was not engaged by the respondent in the months of January to June however he was engaged in July and when worked for 31 days, 31 days in August, 25 days in September and in October 15 days aggregating to 102 days in the year 2002. It can be seen from this mandays chart that petitioner had not actually worked 160 days in preceding 12 months of his termination as was required so as to establish applicability of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act and consequently violation of Section 25-F for having not issued any notice by the respondent before terminating his services. Although, petitioner on oath has maintained that no notice was issued by the respondent while terminating his services but it was not the requirement of the law as petitioner had never worked for 160 days preceding his date of termination although in different years he had worked for number of days but those days could not be counted for the purpose of 160 days as break period exist in between. The petitioner has denied in cross-examination that he had left the job of his own but he has not established to have worked for 160 days as stated above in the tribal area as was required under law. The plea of abandonment of the termination ceases to have significance as no notice was required to be issued by the respondent. As such, it may not be erroneous to conclude that respondent was not required to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F by issuance of legal notice before terminating the services of petitioner.

13. In so far in the plea of the petitioner having been removed from service by the respondent and retention of juniors or reengaging them to so that they completed 160 days is concerned, this plea is also not proved in as much as the petitioner has failed to produce any 7562 राजपत्र, हिमाचल प्रदेश, 22 फरवरी, 2017/3 फाल्गुन, 1938 seniority list by which it could be established that Suraj Ram, Mohan Lal, Chunku Ram, Budhi Ram and Dev Raj were appointed in the years 1997, 1994, 2000, 2003 and 2004 respectively. In cross-examination of petitioner he has denied that no juniors to him have been retained but the plea was taken by petitioner has not been established by reliable evidence and uncorroborated testimony of the petitioner cannot be hold that the respondent had retained juniors and regularized them in service by allowing them to complete 160 days in tribal area of Pangi. No witness had been examined by petitioner to prove that junior to petitioner was engaged after termination of services of petitioner. At the same time, no documentary evidence which would further corroborate or support the plea of the petitioner has been brought on record. Ex. RW1/C1 to C5 are judgments vide which those petitioners were engaged but close scrutiny of these documents revealed that these persons had actually worked for more than 160 days in preceding 12 months prior to termination and the respondent while terminating the service of petitioner failed to issue any notice envisaged under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act which is held to have not proved since it has not been established by petitioner that any junior person has been retained in services.

14. Be it noticed that there is no merit in the allegation of the petitioner that respondent had violated the provisions of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act irrespective of the fact that there is no requirement of the law that the petitioner should have worked 160 days yet he was not absolved of responsibility to establish that some junior persons were retained and he was not offered for reengagement. Accordingly, it is held that the respondent had not violated the provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act as principle of 'Last come First go' was not proved to have been not followed. Since none of the provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H have been violated by the respondent, this Tribunal is left with no option but answer the issues no.2 and 3 in negative.

15. On the point of delay in issuance of legal notice to the respondent, it would be relevant to mention here that the services of petitioner had been terminated in 2003 whereas petitioner had issued legal notice on 29.11.2011 which goes to suggest that petitioner had issued legal notice and there was no explanation of delay. Keeping in view the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments wherein it has been held that delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely an important circumstance to be considered by court but not fatal to claim of petitioner and court has to keep in mind while exercising discretion as has also been observed 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 done and the delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute. But to my mind petitioner has not proved violation of any of the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act as stated above and for that reason he would not be entitled for relief of reinstatement as claimed by the petitioner or even for lump compensation as has been awarded by this Tribunal in various cases of similar nature. The petition is held to be not maintainable as petitioner has failed to establish any of the provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act who is also held not entitled even for lump sum compensation in lieu of service rendered by him to the respondent. Issues no.1 is decided as discussed whereas issues no. 2 and 3 are answered in negative and issue no.4 answered in affirmative. All these issues are decided against the petitioner and in favour of respondent.

RELIEF

16. As a sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, the instant claim petition is dismissed. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

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

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

day of October, 2016.

Announced in the open Court today this 28th

(K. K. SHARMA),

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal,

Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

___________

HIMACHAL PRADESH TWELFTH LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

NOTIFICATION

Shimla–171004, the 20th February, 2017

No. VS-Legn.-Panel/ 1–11/2013.—In pursuance of rule 12 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of Himachal Pradesh Legislature Assembly, 1973, the Hon'ble Speaker has been pleased to nominate the following Members on the panel of Presiding Chairpersons for the year 2017 :—

1. Smt. Asha Kumari

2. Shri Suresh Bhardwaj

3. Shri Kuldip Kumar

SUNDER SINGH VERMA, Secretary, H.P. Legislative Assembly.

_______

TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-2, the 20th February, 2017

No.Pari –Chh(7)-5/99-Part-I.—The Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to change the nomenclature of the post of Barrier Incharge as Assistant Regional Transport Officer Class-II (Non-Gazetted) in the pay band of Rs. 10300-34800+4200 Grade pay in the Department of Transport with immediate effect.

By order, SANJAY GUPTA, Principal Secretary (Transport).

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