jkti=] fgekpy izns'k

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

eaxyokj] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

fgekpy izns'k ljdkj

LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-171001, the 20^th December, 2016

No.:11-23/84(Lab)ID/2016/Una.—It appears to the undersigned that an industrial dispute

exists between Smt. Seema Rani W/O Shri Balwinder Singh, R/O V.P.O. Ambota, Tehsil Amb,

48&jkti=@2017&06&06&2017

¼1913½

1914

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

District Una, H.P. and the Principal, D.A.V. Senior Secondary Public School, Ambota,

District Una, H.P. on the issue of alleged termination of his services w.e.f. 01-04-2015.

As per the report under section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 submitted by the

Conciliation Officer, he tried his level best to settle the dispute during conciliation proceedings but

could not succeed. The report so received has been considered by the undersigned and as per power

vested under sub section-5 of Section-12 of the Act ibid, the undersigned has decided that this

dispute is required to be legally adjudicated by the Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal.

Therefore, the undersigned while exercising the powers vested by the Govt. of Himachal

Pradesh vide Notification No.: Shram (A) 4-9/2006-IV-Loose, Dated 15th February, 2014 and as

per power vested under Sub Section-1 of Section 10 of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of

1947) this industrial dispute is referred to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal Dharamshala,

constituted under Section-7 of Act ibid, on the following issue/ issues for legal adjudication:—

“Whether termination of services of Smt. Seema Rani W/O Shri Balwinder Singh, R/O

V.P.O. Ambota, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P., who was employed as Aaya w.e.f. 01-04-

2015 by the Principal, D.A.V. Senior Secondary Public School, Ambota, District Una, 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?”

By order,

Sd/-

Deputy Labour Commissioner,

Himachal Pradesh.

___________

LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-171001, the 31^st December, 2016

No.:11-1/18(Lab)ID/2016/Sunder

Nagar.—Whereas

the

Labour

Inspector-cum-

Conciliation Officer, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi has submitted a report as provided under

Section-12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stating that there was an alleged industrial

dispute in between Shri Shyam Lal S/O Shri Nikku Ram, R/O Village Bhanthred, P.O. Baroti,

Tehsil Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. and the Executive Engineer, Sunder Nagar Division,

H.P.P.W.D. Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. as per demand notice dated 21-07-2015 submitted

by the said ex-worker regarding his alleged termination of services.

Whereas, the Labour Inspector-cum-Conciliation Officer, has incorporated in the report that

during the course of conciliation proceedings for the purpose of bringing about a legal and

amicable settlement, all matters affecting the settlement were investigated and has made all efforts

for the purpose of inducing the parties to come to legal, fair and amicable settlement of the said

dispute. However, no such settlement could be arrived at in between the parties to the industrial

dispute.

Whereas, undersigned while exercising the power vested as provided under sub- section-5

of Section-12 of the Act ibid carefully examined the report and come to the conclusion that above

1915

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

ex-worker had raised the dispute of alleged illegal termination from the services during January,

1998 before the above employer after delay of more than 17 years.

Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the undersigned while exercising

the powers vested by the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh vide Notification No.: Shram (A) 4-9/2006-

IV-Loose, Dated 15th February, 2014 and as provided in Sub Section-1 of Section-10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) and keeping in view the latest judgments of the Hon’ble

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla about the declining the references to the Labour Court for

adjudication, formed an opinion to refer this dispute to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal

Dharamshala, constituted under Section-7 of Act ibid, for legal adjudication on following

issue/issues:—

“Whether alleged termination of the services of Shri Shyam Lal S/O Shri Nikku Ram, R/O

Village Bhanthred, P.O. Baroti, Tehsil Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. during January,

1998 by the Executive Engineer, Sunder Nagar Division, H.P.P.W.D. Sunder Nagar,

District Mandi, H.P. who has worked as beldar on daily wages basis and has raised his

industrial dispute vide demand notice dated 21-07-2015 after delay of more than 17 years,

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

justified? If not, keeping in view of working period and delay of more than 17 years in

raising the industrial dispute, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits

and compensation the above ex-worker is entitled to from the above employer/

management? ”

By order,

Sd/-

Deputy Labour Commissioner,

Himachal Pradesh.

___________

LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-171001, the 22^nd December, 2016

No.:11-23/84(Lab)ID/2016/Una.—It appears to the undersigned that an industrial dispute

exists between Smt. Sunita Devi W/O Shri Pawan Kumar R/O V.P.O. Nangal Khurd, Tehsil Haroli,

District Una, H.P. and the Employer/Managing Director, M/S SURIE(S) Polex, V.P.O. Bela Bathri,

Tehsil Haroli, District Una, H.P. on the issue of alleged termination of her services w.e.f. 30-09-

2015.

As per the report under section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 submitted by the

Conciliation Officer, he tried his level best to settle the dispute during conciliation proceedings but

could not succeed. The report so received has been considered by the undersigned and as per power

vested under sub section-5 of Section-12 of the Act ibid, the undersigned has decided that this

dispute is required to be legally adjudicated by the Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal.

Therefore, the undersigned while exercising the powers vested by the Govt. of Himachal

Pradesh vide Notification No.: Shram (A) 4-9/2006-IV-Loose, Dated 15th February, 2014 and as

per power vested under Sub Section-1 of Section 10 of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of

1947) this industrial dispute is referred to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal Dharamshala,

constituted under Section-7 of Act ibid, on the following issue/ issues for legal adjudication:—

1916

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

“Whether termination of services of Smt. Sunita Devi W/O Shri Pawan Kumar R/O V.P.O.

Nangal Khurd, Tehsil Haroli, District Una, H.P. w.e.f. 30-09-2015 by the

Employer/Managing Director, M/S SURIE(S) Polex, V.P.O. Bela Bathri, Tehsil Haroli,

District Una, 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?”

By order,

Sd/-

Deputy Labour Commissioner,

Himachal Pradesh.

___________

LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-171001, the 1^st December, 2016

No.:11-5/99(Lab)ID/2016/Chamba.—It appears to the undersigned that an industrial

dispute exists between Shri Ved Bias S/O Shri Rijhu Ram, R/O Village Kali, P.O. Bat, Tehsil

Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. and the Principal, Government Post Graduate College Chamba,

District Chamba, H.P. on the issue of alleged termination of his services w.e.f. 29-11-2014.

As per the report under section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 submitted by the

Conciliation Officer, he tried his level best to settle the dispute during conciliation proceedings but

could not succeed. The report so received has been considered by the undersigned and as per power

vested under sub section-5 of Section-12 of the Act ibid, the undersigned has decided that this

dispute is required to be legally adjudicated by the Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal.

Therefore, the undersigned while exercising the powers vested by the Govt. of Himachal

Pradesh vide Notification No.: Shram (A) 4-9/2006-IV-Loose, Dated 15th February, 2014 and as

per power vested under Sub Section-1 of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of

1947) this industrial dispute is referred to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal Dharamshala,

constituted under Section-7 of Act ibid, on the following issue/ issues for legal adjudication:-

“Whether termination of services of Shri Ved Bias S/O Shri Rijhu Ram, R/O Village Kali,

P.O. Bat, Tehsil Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. w.e.f. 29-11-2014 by the Principal,

Government Post Graduate College Chamba, 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?”

By order,

Sd/-

Deputy Labour Commissioner,

Himachal Pradesh.

1917

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-171001, the 21^st December, 2016

No.:11-23/84(Lab)ID/2016/Mandi.—Whereas

the

Labour

Officer-cum-Conciliation

Officer, Mandi has submitted a report as provided under Section-12(4) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 stating that there was an alleged industrial dispute in between Shri Vipin Kumar S/O Shri

Jagdish Narayan, R/O Village Kapahi, P.O. Sari, Sub Tehsil Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P. and

(i) the Engineer-in-Chief, H.P.P.W.D. Nirman Bhawan, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (ii) the

Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D., Division Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P. as per demand notice

dated 05-06-2015 submitted by the said ex-worker regarding his alleged termination of services.

Whereas, the Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, has incorporated in the report that

during the course of conciliation proceedings for the purpose of bringing about a legal and

amicable settlement, all matters affecting the settlement were investigated and has made all efforts

for the purpose of inducing the parties to come to legal, fair and amicable settlement of the said

dispute. However, no such settlement could be arrived at in between the parties to the industrial

dispute.

Whereas, undersigned while exercising the power vested as provided under sub- section-5

of Section-12 of the Act ibid carefully examined the report and come to the conclusion that above

ex-worker had raised the dispute of alleged illegal termination from the services during August,

1999 before the above employer after delay of more than 15 years and has worked only for 94 days

during the year 1999.

Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the undersigned while exercising

the powers vested by the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh vide Notification No.: Shram (A) 4-9/2006-

IV-Loose, Dated 15th February, 2014 and as provided in Sub Section-1 of Section-10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) and keeping in view the latest judgments of the Hon’ble

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla about the declining the references to the Labour Court for

adjudication, formed an opinion to refer this dispute to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal

Dharamshala, constituted under Section-7 of Act ibid, for legal adjudication on following

issue/issues:—

“Whether alleged termination of the services of Shri Vipin Kumar S/O Shri Jagdish

Narayan, R/O Village Kapahi, P.O. Sari, Sub Tehsil Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P.

during August, 1999 by (i) the Engineer-in-Chief, H.P.P.W.D. Nirman Bhawan, Shimla,

District Shimla, H.P. (ii) the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D., Division Dharampur, District

Mandi, H.P. who has worked as beldar on daily wages basis and has raised his industrial

dispute vide demand notice dated 05-06-2015 after delay of more than 15 years, without

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

not, keeping in view of working period during year 1999 for 94 days respectively and delay

of more than 15 years in raising the industrial dispute, what amount of back wages,

seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above ex-worker is entitled to from the

above employer/management? ”

By order,

Sd/-

Deputy Labour Commissioner,

Himachal Pradesh.

1918

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-171001, the 22^nd December, 2016

No.:11-5/93(Lab)ID/2013/Chamba.—Whereas Ms. Gulabi Devi D/O Shri Veer Chand,

R/O V.P.O. Sural Tai, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. had raised a demand notice dated 29-12-

2011 regarding her illegal termination from the services by the Executive Engineer, Killar Division,

H.P.PW.D./I.&P.H., Killar (Pangi), District Chamba, H.P. The Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation

Officer Chamba Zone, District Chamba, H.P. tried to settle the industrial dispute amicably, but the

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

report under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Commissioner,

Himachal Pradesh;

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

Zone, Chamba was considered, examined and the Labour Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh as

appropriate Government came to the conclusion that above worker had raised the dispute at a

belated stage of more than 11 years and therefore declined the reference of the dispute vide order

dated 09-10-2014;

And whereas Ms. Gulabi Devi D/O Shri Veer Chand agitated the above orders of declining

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

Himachal Pradesh vide CWP No. 1222/2016. The Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh has

disposed off the CWP on dated 13-06-2016 and directed the respondents to consider the case of the

petitioners, in terms of the judgment dated 30th December, 2014, delivered by the Hon’ble High

Court in C.W.P. No. 9467 of 2014, titled as Pratap Chand Versus Himachal Pradesh State

Electricity Board and others. The operative part of the said judgment is reproduced as follows:—

“3. In the given circumstances, we deem it proper to direct the respondents to consider the

case of the petitioners, in terms of the judgment (supra), and make a decision within eight

weeks. The said judgment shall form part of this judgment also.

4. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly, alongwith pending applications, if any.”

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

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

15th February, 2014 and as per power vested under Sub Section-1 of Section-10 of the Industrial

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

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

legal adjudication:—

“Whether the alleged termination of services of Ms. Gulabi Devi D/O Shri Veer Chand,

R/O V.P.O. Sural Tai, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. during October, 2000 by the

Executive Engineer, Killar Division, H.P.PW.D./I.&P.H., Killar (Pangi), District Chamba,

H.P. who had worked on daily wages as beldar and has raised her industrial dispute after

more than 11 years vide demand notice dated 29-12-2011, without complying with the

provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, keeping in

view delay of more than 11 years in raising the industrial dispute, what amount of back

1919

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above ex-worker is entitled to

from the above employer/management?”

By order,

Sd/-

Deputy Labour Commissioner,

Himachal Pradesh.

___________

LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-171001, the 25^th November, 2016

No.:11-1/85(Lab)ID/2016/Kangra.—Whereas Shri Amar Singh S/O Shri Diwan Chand,

R/O Village Bariara, P.O. Khel, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. had raised a demand notice

dated nil received in Labour Office Kangra at Dharamshala on 13-06-2011 regarding his illegal

termination from the services by (i) the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D., Division Nurpur, District

Kangra, H.P. (ii) the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D., Division Jawali, District Kangra, H.P.The

Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. tried to

settle the industrial dispute amicably, but the same could not be settled during the course of

conciliation proceedings, where after he has sent a report under Section 12(4) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh;

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

Dharamshala was considered, examined and the Labour Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh as

appropriate Government came to the conclusion that above worker had raised the dispute at a

belated stage of about 21 years and therefore declined the reference of the dispute vide order dated

22-08-2013;

And whereas Shri Amar Singh S/O Shri Diwan Chand has agitated the above orders of

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

Court of Himachal Pradesh vide CWP No. 490/2016. The Hon’ble High Court of Himachal

Pradesh has disposed off the CWP on dated 19-03-2016 and directed the respondents to consider

the case of the petitioners, in terms of the judgment dated 30th December, 2014, delivered by the

Hon’ble High Court in C.W.P. No. 9467 of 2014, titled as Pratap Chand Versus Himachal Pradesh

State Electricity Board and others. The operative part of the said judgment is reproduced as

follows:—

“3. In the given circumstances, we deem it proper to direct the respondents to consider the

case of the petitioners, in terms of the judgment (supra), and make a decision within eight

weeks. The said judgment shall form part of this judgment also.

4. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly, alongwith pending applications, if any.”

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

Government of Himachal Pradesh vide Notification No.: Shram (A) 4-9/2006-IV-Loose,

Dated 15th February, 2014 and as per power vested under Sub Section-1 of Section-10 of

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

1920

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal Dharamshala, constituted under Section-7 of Act ibid, on

the following issue/issues for legal adjudication:—

“Whether the alleged termination of services of Shri Amar Singh S/O Shri Diwan Chand,

R/O Village Bariara, P.O. Khel, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. during year, 1990 by

(i) the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D., Division Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. (ii) the

Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D., Division Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., who had worked

on daily wages as beldar and has raised his industrial dispute after about 21 years vide

demand notice dated nil received in the Labour Office Kangra at Dharamshala on 13-06-

2011, without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and

justified? If not, keeping in view delay of about 21 years in raising the industrial dispute,

what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above ex-

worker is entitled to from the above employers/management?”

By order,

Sd/-

Deputy Labour Commissioner,

Himachal Pradesh.

___________

LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-171001, the 25^th November, 2016

No.:11-1/85(Lab)ID/2016/Kangra.—Whereas Shri Balwant Singh S/O Shri Tej Ram, R/O

V. P.O. Khanni, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. had raised a demand notice dated nil received

in Labour Office Kangra at Dharamshala on 13-06-2012 regarding his illegal termination from the

services by (i) the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D., Division Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. (ii) the

Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D., Division Jawali, District Kangra, H.P.The Labour Officer-cum-

Conciliation Officer Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. tried to settle the industrial

dispute amicably, but the same could not be settled during the course of conciliation proceedings,

where after he has sent a report under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the

Labour Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh;

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

Dharamshala was considered, examined and the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh

as appropriate Government came to the conclusion that above worker had raised the dispute at a

belated stage of about 22years and therefore declined the reference of the dispute vide order dated

10-04-2015;

And whereas Shri Balwant Singh S/O Shri Tej Ram has agitated the above orders of

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

Court of Himachal Pradesh vide CWP No. 748/2016. The Hon’ble High Court of Himachal

Pradesh has disposed off the CWP on dated 06-04-2016 and directed the respondents to consider

the case of the petitioners, in terms of the judgment dated 30th December, 2014, delivered by the

Hon’ble High Court in C.W.P. No. 9467 of 2014, titled as Pratap Chand Versus Himachal Pradesh

State Electricity Board and others. The operative part of the said judgment is reproduced as

follows:—

1921

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

“3. In the given circumstances, we deem it proper to direct the respondents to consider the

case of the petitioners, in terms of the judgment (supra), and make a decision within eight

weeks. The said judgment shall form part of this judgment also.

4. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly, alongwith pending applications, if any.”

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

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

15th February, 2014 and as per power vested under Sub Section-1 of Section-10 of the Industrial

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

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

legal adjudication:—

“Whether the alleged termination of services of Shri Balwant Singh S/O Shri Tej Ram, R/O

V. P.O. Khanni, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. during year, 1990 by (i) the Executive

Engineer, H.P.P.W.D., Division Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. (ii) the Executive Engineer,

H.P.P.W.D., Division Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., who had worked on daily wages as

beldar and has raised his industrial dispute after about 22 years vide demand notice dated nil

received in the Labour Office Kangra at Dharamshala on 13-06-2012, without complying

the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, keeping in

view delay of about 22 years in raising the industrial dispute, what amount of back wages,

seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above ex-worker is entitled to from the

above employers/management?”

By order,

Sd/-

Deputy Labour Commissioner,

Himachal Pradesh.

___________

LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-171001, the 28^th November, 2016

No.:11-5/99(Lab)ID/2016/Chamba.—Whereas

the

Labour

Officer-cum-Conciliation

Officer, Chamba has submitted a report as provided under Section-12(4) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 stating that there was an alleged industrial dispute in between Shri Subhash Kumar S/O

Shri Atti Ram, R/O Village Chow, P.O. Purthi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. through Shri

N.L. Kaundal, (Legal Advisor, BMS) H/Q Balakrupi, P.O. Jalpehar, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District

Mandi, H.P. and the Divisional Forest Officer, Pangi Forest Division, Killar, District Chamba, H.P.

as per demand notice dated 02-07-2015 submitted by the said ex-worker regarding his alleged

termination of services.

Whereas, the Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, has incorporated in the report that

during the course of conciliation proceedings for the purpose of bringing about a legal and

amicable settlement, all matters affecting the settlement were investigated and has made all efforts

for the purpose of inducing the parties to come to legal, fair and amicable settlement of the said

dispute. However, no such settlement could be arrived at in between the parties to the industrial

dispute.

1922

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

Whereas, undersigned while exercising the power vested as provided under sub- section-5

of Section-12 of the Act ibid carefully examined the report and come to the conclusion that above

ex-worker had raised the dispute of alleged illegal termination from the services during October,

2004 before the above employer after delay of more than 11 years and has worked during October,

2004.

Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the undersigned while exercising

the powers vested by the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh vide Notification No.: Shram (A) 4-9/2006-

IV-Loose, Dated 15th February, 2014 and as provided in Sub Section-1 of Section-10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) and keeping in view the latest judgments of the Hon’ble

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla about the declining the references to the Labour Court for

adjudication, formed an opinion to refer this dispute to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal

Dharamshala, constituted under Section-7 of Act ibid, for legal adjudication on following

issue/issues:—

“Whether alleged termination of the services of Shri Subhash Kumar S/O Shri Atti Ram,

R/O Village Chow, P.O. Purthi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. through Shri N.L.

Kaundal, (Legal Advisor, BMS) H/Q Balakrupi, P.O. Jalpehar, Tehsil Joginder Nagar,

District Mandi, H.P. during October, 2004 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Pangi Forest

Division, Killar, District Chamba, H.P. who has worked as beldar on daily wages basis and

has raised his industrial dispute vide demand notice dated 02-07-2015 after delay of more

than 11 years, without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is

legal and justified? If not, keeping in view of working period of October, 2004 for 31 days

and delay of more than 11 years in raising the industrial dispute, what amount of back

wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above ex-worker is entitled to

from the above employer/management? ”

By order,

Sd/-

Deputy Labour Commissioner,

Himachal Pradesh.

___________

LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-171001, the 18^th November, 2016.

No.:11-1/86(Lab)ID/2016/Kangra.—It appears to the undersigned that an industrial

dispute exists between Shri Chuhar Singh S/O Shri Jagat Ram, R/O Village Anuhi, P.O. Kotla,

Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. and the Executive Engineer, I.&P.H., Division Nurpur, District

Kangra, H.P. on the issue of alleged time to time termination of his services during June, 1995 to

31-12-2005.

As per the report under section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 submitted by the

Conciliation Officer, he tried his level best to settle the dispute during conciliation proceedings but

could not succeed. The report so received has been considered by the undersigned and as per power

vested under sub section-5 of Section-12 of the Act ibid, the undersigned has decided that this

dispute is required to be legally adjudicated by the Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal.

1923

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

Therefore, the undersigned while exercising the powers vested by the Government of

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

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

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

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

adjudication:—

“Whether time to time termination of the services of Shri Chuhar Singh S/O Shri Jagat

Ram, R/O Village Anuhi, P.O. Kotla, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. during June, 1995

to 31-12-2005 by the Executive Engineer, I.&P.H., Division Nurpur, District Kangra, 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 including

regularization of services and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above

employer?”

By order,

Sd/-

Deputy Labour Commissioner,

Himachal Pradesh.

___________

LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-171001, the 7^th November, 2016

No.:11-1/85(Lab)ID/2016/Kangra.—Whereas Shri Des Raj S/O Shri Mangat Ram, R/O

Village Danna, P.O. Khawara, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. had raised a demand notice

dated nil received in Labour Office Kangra at Dharamshala on 04-03-2013 regarding his illegal

termination from the services by (i) the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D., Division Nurpur, District

Kangra, H.P. (ii) the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D., Division Jawali, District Kangra, H.P.The

Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. tried to settle the

industrial dispute amicably, but the same could not be settled during the course of conciliation

proceedings, where after he has sent a report under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 to the Labour Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh;

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

Dharamshala was considered, examined and the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh

as appropriate Government came to the conclusion that above worker had raised the dispute at a

belated stage of more than 22 years and therefore declined the reference of the dispute vide order

dated 29-05-2015;

And whereas Shri Des Raj S/O Shri Mangat Ram agitated the above orders of declining of

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

Himachal Pradesh vide CWP No. 1227/2016. The Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh has

disposed off the CWP on dated 13-06-2016 and directed the respondents to consider the case of the

petitioners, in terms of the judgment dated 30^th December, 2014, delivered by the Hon’ble High

Court in C.W.P. No. 9467 of 2014, titled as Pratap Chand Versus Himachal Pradesh State

Electricity Board and others. The operative part of the said judgment is reproduced as follows:—

1924

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

“3. In the given circumstances, we deem it proper to direct the respondents to consider the

case of the petitioners, in terms of the judgment (supra), and make a decision within eight

weeks. The said judgment shall form part of this judgment also.

4. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly, alongwith pending applications, if any.”

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

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

15th February, 2014 and as per power vested under Sub Section-1 of Section-10 of the Industrial

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

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

legal adjudication:—

“Whether the alleged termination of services of Shri Des Raj S/O Shri Mangat Ram, R/O

Village Danna, P.O. Khawara, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. during year, 1990 by (i) the

Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D., Division Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. (ii) the Executive

Engineer, H.P.P.W.D., Division Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., who had worked on daily wages as

beldar and has raised his industrial dispute after more than 22 years vide demand notice dated nil

received in the Labour Office Kangra at Dharamshala on 04-03-2013, without complying the

provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, keeping in view delay

of more than 22 years in raising the industrial dispute, what amount of back wages, seniority, past

service benefits and compensation the above ex-worker is entitled to from the above employers/

management?”

By order,

Sd/-

Deputy Labour Commissioner,

Himachal Pradesh.

___________

LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-171002, the 20^th May, 2017

No. Shram (A)4-4/2017.—In pursuance of the Notification No. DIT-(e-District)1-2011-83

dated 13-05-2015 issued by the Department of Information Technology, Himachal Pradesh, it is

hereby informed that the public services offered by the Department of Labour & Employment,

Himachal Pradesh, which are mentioned below will now be delivered to the citizen through online

system using the e-District application (http://edistrict.hp.gov.in)/ Himachal Pradesh state Portal

(http://himachal.nic.in)/ State Service Delivery Gateway (SSDG) (https://eserviceshp.gov.in)/

LokMitra Kendras(http://lmk.gov.in)/ Sugam:

The services offered by the Department of Labour & Employment are:



Registration of Shops and Commercial Establishment.



Renewal of Shops and Commercial Establishment.

1925

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939



Registration of Establishment Employing Contract Labour.



Application for Contract Labour License.



Renewal of Contract Labour License.



Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act, 1979:

1- Registration of Establishment of Principal Employer Employing Interstate

Migrant Workmen.

2- Licensing of Contractors under the Act.

3- Renewal of License of Contractors under the Act.



Motor Transport Worker Act, 1961:

1- Registration of Establishment/Motor Transport Undertakings.

2- Renewal of Registration Certificates of establishment/ Motor Transport

Undertakings.



Registration of Establishment under the Building and Other Construction Workers.

Government fee and user charges are as below:

1. Government Fee: As notified by department from time to time.

2. *LMK User Charges:

Sr.

No.

Activity

Proposed user

Charges (in Rs.)

1.

Filling up of Application details and uploading citizen request

through e-District Portal or LMK Portal

10/-

2.

Scanning & uploading of supporting documents, if any, on the

portal/ e-District Portal.

2/- per page

3.

Printing of the final document/ certificate to the citizen after

approval of the concerned department (if any)

10/- per page

OR

Sugam User Charges : Rs. 10 per Application

*Note.—LMK user charges or Sugam user charges would be applicable if the applicant

applies at LMK or Sugam centre. The applicant may also apply online directly, wherein only the

processing fee along with the government fee will be applicable.

3. In addition to the fees being levied under Sr. No. 1&2, an additional Processing Fee in

order to provide Labour & Employment service through e-District application would be charged

Rs. 10/- per application. The proceeds of Rs. 10/- would be distributed in the following manner:

Rs. 7/- (70%) i.e. (to Departmental e-governance Society)

Rs. 3/- (30%) i.e. (to e-governance Society of the IT Department).

By order,

R. D. DHIMAN,

Principal Secretary (Labour &Employment).

1926

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-171001, the 9^th January, 2017

No.:11-5/99(Lab)ID/2016/Chamba.—Whereas

the

Labour

Officer-cum-Conciliation

Officer, Chamba, District Chamba has submitted a report as provided under Section-12(4) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stating that there was an alleged industrial dispute in between Shri

Devi Saran S/O Shri Ram Lal, R/O Village Chask, P.O. Saichu, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba,

H.P. and the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, H.P.P.W.D. Killar (Pangi), District Chamba, H.P.

as per demand notice dated 28-09-2015 submitted by the said ex-worker regarding his alleged

termination of services.

Whereas, the Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, has incorporated in the report that

during the course of conciliation proceedings for the purpose of bringing about a legal and

amicable settlement, all matters affecting the settlement were investigated and has made all efforts

for the purpose of inducing the parties to come to legal, fair and amicable settlement of the said

dispute. However, no such settlement could be arrived at in between the parties to the industrial

dispute.

Whereas, undersigned while exercising the power vested as provided under sub- section-5

of Section-12 of the Act ibid carefully examined the report and come to the conclusion that above

ex-worker had raised the dispute of alleged illegal termination from the services during year, 1996

before the above employer after delay of about 19 years.

Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the undersigned while exercising

the powers vested by the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh vide Notification No.: Shram (A) 4-9/2006-

IV-Loose, Dated 15th February, 2014 and as provided in Sub Section-1 of Section-10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) and keeping in view the latest judgments of the Hon’ble

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla about the declining the references to the Labour Court for

adjudication, formed an opinion to refer this dispute to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal

Dharamshala, constituted under Section-7 of Act ibid, for legal adjudication on following

issue/issues:—

“Whether alleged termination of the services of Shri Devi Saran S/O Shri Ram Lal, R/O

Village Chask, P.O. Saichu, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. during year, 1996 by the

Executive Engineer, Killar Division, H.P.P.W.D. Killar (Pangi), District Chamba, H.P. who has

worked as beldar on daily wages basis and has raised his industrial dispute vide demand notice

dated 28-09-2015 after delay of about 19 years, without complying with the provisions of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, keeping in view of working period and

delay of about 19 years in raising the industrial dispute, what amount of back wages, seniority, past

service benefits and compensation the above ex-worker is entitled to from the above

employer/management? ”

By order,

Sd/-

Deputy Labour Commissioner,

Himachal Pradesh.

1927

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-171001, the 20^th January, 2017

No.:11-23/84(Lab)ID/2016/Una.—It appears to the undersigned that an industrial dispute

exists between the Vice President/Secretary, Himachal Desi Sharab Karamchari Sangh, C/O CLBP,

Industrial Area Mehatpur, District Una, H.P. and (i) the Managing Director, Himachal Pradesh

General Industries Corporation Limited, Himrus Building, Cart Road, Shimla, H.P., (ii) the General

Manager, Himachal Pradesh General Industries Corporation Limited, Country Liquor Bottling

Plant, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Industrial Area, Mehatpur, District Una, H.P. and (iii)

Ram Singh Kanda & Sons, R/O Ward No. 9, V.P.O. Basdehra, Tehsil & District Una,

H.P.(Contractor) on the issue of miscellaneous demands.

As per the report under section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 submitted by the

Conciliation Officer, he tried his level best to settle the dispute during conciliation proceedings but

could not succeed. The report so received has been considered by the undersigned and as per power

vested under sub section-5 of Section-12 of the Act ibid, the undersigned has decided that this

dispute is required to be legally adjudicated by the Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal.

Therefore, the undersigned while exercising the powers vested by the Govt. of Himachal

Pradesh vide Notification No.: Shram (A) 4-9/2006-IV-Loose, Dated 15^th February, 2014 and as

per power vested under Sub Section-1 of Section 10 of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of

1947) this industrial dispute is referred to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal Dharamshala,

constituted under Section-7 of Act ibid, on the following issue/ issues for legal adjudication:—

“Whether the demands raised by the Vice President/Secretary, Himachal Desi Sharab

Karamchari Sangh, C/O CLBP, Industrial Area Mehatpur, District Una, H.P. regarding

regularization of 45 contract workers (list enclosed) vide demand notice dated 23-08-2013

(copy enclosed) to be fulfilled by (i) the Managing Director, Himachal Pradesh General

Industries Corporation Limited, Himrus Building, Cart Road, Shimla, H.P., (ii) the General

Manager, Himachal Pradesh General Industries Corporation Limited, Country Liquor

Bottling Plant, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Industrial Area, Mehatpur, District Una,

H.P. and (iii) Ram Singh Kanda & Sons, R/O Ward No. 9, V.P.O. Basdehra, Tehsil &

District Una, H.P.(Contractor), is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief, service benefits,

from which date the above workmen are entitled to from the above employers/

Management?”

By order,

Sd/-

Deputy Labour Commissioner,

Himachal Pradesh.

1928

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla, the 27^th May, 2017

No: Shram (A) 6-1/2017 (Awards).—In exercise of the powers vested under section 17 (1)

of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, the Governor Himachal Pradesh is pleased to order the

publication of awards of the following cases announced by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court

Shimla on the website of the Department of Labour & Employment Government of Himachal

Pradesh:—

Sr.

No.

Reference/

Application

Title

Section

1.

Ref.52/2009

Sh. Raj Kumar V/s M/S Rexine Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd.

Village Katha, Baddi District Solan.

10

2.

Ref.46/2014

Sh.Layak Ram V/s The Principal, Green Hills Engineering

College, Gandhigram Kumarhatti, District

Solan, H.P.

10

3.

Ref.48/2014

Sh. Lokesh Chand Ram V/S -do-

4.

Ref.81/2015

Sh. Vikram Singh V/s The M.D. HRTC, Shimla & Anr.

10

5.

Ref.94/2016

Sh.Amar Singh V/s The Sr. Executive Engineer, Shimla

Electrical Division No.1, HPSEB Ltd. Shimla.

10

6.

Ref.25/17

Sh.Madan Lal V/s M/S Ganga Dari Hydro Power (P)

Ltd. Gamba House, Shimla-171009, H.P.

10

7.

Ref.26/2017

Sh. Pawan Kumar V/s -do-

10

8.

Ref.28/2017

Sh. Surjeet Singh V/s -do-

10

9.

Ref.58/2015

Sh. Dinesh Chand V/s Dr. Y.S. Parmar University, Nauni &

Anr.

10

10.

Ref.09/2009

Sh. Deep Ram & Ors V/s The M.D. Himfed & Anr.

10

11.

Ref.43/2014

Sh. Reena Devi V/s Manager, (HRD & Admin.) M/S Super

Cassettes Industries Ltd. Nalagarh District Solan

H.P.

10

12.

Ref.36/2017

The President & General Secretary, Hotal Oberoi Clarks

Employees Union V/S The G.M. Clarks Hotal, The Mall,

Shimla.

10

13.

Ref.56/2011

The President/General Secretary, Kamla Dial Workers

Union V/S Factory Manager, Kamla Dials & Devices

Ltd. Parwanoo District Solan, H.P.

10

14.

Ref.129/2016 Sh. Hari Krishan V/s The Executive Engineer, HPPWD,

Division Kumarsain District Shimla, H.P.

10

1929

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

15.

App.10/2015

Sh. Dharmender V/s M/S Mountain Steels (P) Ltd.

Buranwala, Baddi District Solan, H.P.

2-A

16.

Ref.130/2016 Sh. Narayan Singh V/s The Divisional Forest Officer,

Forest Division, Shimla, H.P.

10

17.

Ref.83/2014

Sh. Hoshiyar Singh V/s M/S Zamil Air conditioners India

(P) Ltd. Village Dhadi Kanian, Nalagarh District

Solan, H.P.

10

18.

Ref.86/2014

Sh. Kuldeep Singh V/s M/S J.B. Rolling Mills Ltd. Kala

Amb. Tehsil Nahan District Sirmour, H.P.

10

19.

Ref.03/2017

Sh. Aman Sood V/s The General Manager, M/S Whirlpool

India Ltd. Manimajra, Chandigarh & Ors.

10

20.

Ref.47/2012 Sh. Surender Singh V/s The factory Manager,

M/S Base Corporation Ltd. Santosh Complex, Deonghat,

Saproon, Solan, H.P.

10

21.

Ref.48/2012

Sh. Ashok Kumar V/s -do-

10

22.

Ref.49/2012

Sh. Mukesh Kumar V/s -do-

10

23.

Ref.50/2012

Sh. Pardeep Kumar V/s -do-

10

24.

Ref.54/2012

Sh. Sunil Kumar V/s -do-

10

25.

Ref.55/2012

Sh. Vijay Singh V/s -do-

10

26.

Ref.56/2012

Sh. Deepak Kaushik V/s -do-

10

27.

Ref.57/2012

Sh. Sita Ram V/s –do-

10

28.

Ref.171/2006 Sh. Jai Lal V/s The Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division

Jubbal District Shimla, H.P.

10

By order,

R.D. DHIMAN, IAS,

Pr. Secretary ( Lab. & Emp.).

________

IN THE COURT OF SUSHIL KUKREJA, PRESIDING JUDGE, HP INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA.

Ref. No.

:

52 of 2009.

Instituted on

:

10.8.2009.

Decided on

:

27.4.2017.

Raj Kumar Singh S/o Shri Madhu Sudan Singh R/o Village & P.O Muradpur, Tehsil Rosra,

District Samastipur, Bihar.

...Petitioner.

VS.

1930

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

M/s Rexine Pharma, Pvt. Ltd. Baddi, District Solan, HP.

...Respondent.

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

For petitioner : Shri P.S Chandel, Advocate.

For respondent : Ms. Manjula Upadhyay, Advocate.

AWARD

The reference for adjudication, sent by the appropriate government, is as under:

"Whether termination of services of Shri Raj Kumar Singh S/o Shri Madhu Sudan

Singh by the M/s Rexine Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Khasara no. 105,106, Katha

Baddi, District Solan, HP w.e.f. 11.9.2007 without complying with the provisions of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is proper and justified? If not, to what relief of service

benefits and amount of compensation the above aggrieved workman is entitled to?”

2.

Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that he was engaged as operator by the respondent

company in the year, 2003 at Oskar Plant Dehli on a monthly salary of 2800/-+ over time where he

worked till 29.3.2004 and after change in the name of the company from Oscar to Rexine, the

petitioner rejoined on 29.3.2004 and later he was transferred to Baddi on 13.7.2004, where he

worked till 24.7.2006 on monthly salary of ` 4200/- and on 8.1.2007, due to strike, the petitioner

went on leave and joined the company on 21.3.2007. It is further stated that on 17.4.2007, during

duty hours the petitioner suffered injuries on his hand and got permanent fracture/disability on his

left arm and he got his treatment from Sindhant Nursing home where he spent about `50,000/- on

his treatment and despite fracture, he was compelled to join his duties and as such he joined on

31.8.2007 after the removal of the plaster but he was not allowed to join. It is also stated that before

terminating the services of the petitioner neither any notice of termination was given to him nor any

enquiry was conducted against him, hence, he is entitled for reinstatement including back-wages.

The petitioner is also entitled for ` 50,000/- as medical reimbursement, ` 50,000/- for mental

harassment, `5000/- for bus fair to join the hearing before this Court and room rent of `72000/-.

3. By filing reply, the respondent contested the claim of the petitioner wherein it has been

asserted that there is no relationship of employer and workman between the parties as the petitioner

was never employed by the management of respondent company, hence, the question of

termination of his services does not arise and that the reference is not based on facts. It is further

asserted that the petitioner used to come for casual loading or unloading of material in group with

other loaders on casual basis along-with transportation vehicle that does not mean that the

petitioner becomes the employee of the respondent. It is denied that the respondent company

changed the name to any other company and the petitioner joined the employment of the

respondent company. Since, the petitioner was not the employee of respondent company, hence he

is not entitled to any relief from the respondent company. The respondent prayed or the dismissal

of the claim petition.

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

respondent.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 13.6.2011.

1. Whether the termination of the services of the petitioner by the respondent w.e.f.

11.9.2007is in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

...OPP.

1931

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

2. Whether there is no relationship of employer and workman between the petitioner

and respondent?

...OPR.

3. Whether there is no statement of claim against the respondent company? ...OPR.

4. Relief.

6.

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

of the case carefully.

7. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing issues for determination my

findings on the aforesaid issues are as under.

Issue no.1

No.

Issue no.2

Yes.

Issue no.3

Not pressed.

Relief.

Reference answered in favour of the respondent and against the

petitioner per operative part of award.

Reasons for findings.

Issues no.1 &2.

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

and decision.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that being the workman of the

respondent company, the services of the petitioner have been terminated illegally by the respondent

without following any provision of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act)

as before terminating his services neither any notice was served upon the petitioner nor he was

afforded an opportunity of being heard.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that since the

petitioner was never engaged by the respondent company, hence, the question of his termination

does not arise at all. She further contended that the petitioner never remained in the employment of

respondent and as such the claim filed by him against the respondent is illegal.

11. To prove issue no.1, the petitioner stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and tendered

in evidence his affidavit Ex. PW-1/A wherein he reiterated almost all the averments as stated in the

claim petition. He also tendered in evidence the documents referred to in affidavit Ex. PA to Ex.

PG. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had not placed any document showing that he was

appointed by the management and that he was being paid wages for the work done by him under

the respondent. He also admitted that he has no record to show that he was getting the benefits of

ESI and EPF from the management. He denied that he never worked with the respondent and filed

a false petition.

12. On the other hand, the respondent has examined two RWs. RW-1 Shri K.K Dube, has

stated that he remained in the employment of respondent company as Manager HR and

Administration and no workman having name of Shri Raj Kumar S/o Shri Madhu Sudan Singh was

1932

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

employed by the company during the period he remained employed with the respondent. He further

deposed that no accident had occurred in the company on 17.4.2007, hence, the claim of the

petitioner to have suffered injuries in the accident is totally baseless and as per attendance record

for the period of May, 2006 to March, 2007 no person in the name of Raj Kumar S/o Shri Madhu

Sudan was in the employment of the company and even in the quarterly returns of the contribution

under ESI for the period from 1.4.2006 to 30.9.2007, the name of the petitioner does not find

mention. He also deposed that since the petitioner was not in the employment of the respondent,

there was no question of his being terminated from the service on 11.9.2007 or at any other date in

that year. In cross-examination, he admitted that in attendance mark sheets entries are not in his

hand. He further admitted that the attendance of the workers has been marked by him. He also

admitted that the parentage of the employees had not been mentioned in document mark PY. He

denied that deliberately on record the attendance sheets of the petitioner have not been placed.

13. RW-2 Shri S.P Singh appeared into the witness and tendered in evidence his affidavit

Ex. RW-2/A wherein he stated that no relationship of employer and workman ever existed between

the management and petitioner. He further stated that new factory was established at Baddi where

manufacturing was started in the month of June, 2006 which was an independent entity. He also

tendered in evidence the documents Ex. RW-2/1 to Ex. RW-2/10. In cross-examination, he

admitted that he was working as Senior Executive in Rexine Pharma., Pvt. Ltd. at Delhi in the

month of Jan., 2004. He denied that M/s Rexine Pharma., had taken over M/s Oscar Pharma. He

admitted that the machines and manpower which were bought by the respondent at Delhi were

shifted to Baddi. He further admitted that the attendance of the workers were being marked by the

time office. He admitted that the name of Raj Kumar is appearing in annual return of provident

fund but he is not the Raj Kumar who is petitioner in this case but he is some other Rajkumar S/o

Piyare Singh.

14. I have closely scrutinized the entire evidence, on record, and from the closer scrutiny

thereof, it has become clear that the respondent company M/s Rexine Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. was

incorporated in the year, 2004 and it bought the assets relating to manufacturing activities

(machines and manpower) of M/s Oscar pharmaceuticals situated at Delhi. In the month of April

2006, the management discontinued its manufacturing activities at Delhi and the Factory License

was surrendered to the Inspector of Factories Delhi vide letter dated 12.7.2006 Ex. RW-2/1. A

notice Ex. RW-2/2 was issued by the respondent on 5.5.2006 informing the employees to report for

duties at Baddi on 18.5.2006 and the new factory was established at Baddi where manufacturing

was started in the month of June, 2006. The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged by the

respondent company in the year 2003 at Oscar Plant Delhi where he worked till 29.3.2004 and after

change in the name of the company from Oscar to Rexine he joined on 29.3.2004 and later he was

transferred to Baddi on 13.7.2004. However, no satisfactory evidence has been led by the petitioner

in support of his case. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had not placed on record any

document/appointment letter issued by the company and he has also not placed on record any

document showing that he was being paid wages for the work done by him under the respondent.

No record of ESI and EPF has been placed on record by the petitioner in order to prove that he was

employed by the respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner was not getting any benefit from ESI and

EPF. It was for the petitioner to prove by leading cogent and satisfactory evidence on record that he

was engaged and thereafter terminated by the respondent company. However, no such record has

been produced by the petitioner. The petitioner has only tendered in evidence the gate pass Ex. PA,

complaint dated 11.9.2007 to Labour Inspector Ex. PC and leave application dated 10.5.2007 Ex.

PD. However, these documents are the photocopies and the same have not been proved in

accordance with law. Moreover, in the gate pass Ex. PA, the name has been mentioned as

Rajkumar but father’s name has not been mentioned. Therefore, no credence can be attached to Ex.

PA because it is the case of the respondent that one person with the same name i.e Rajkumar S/o

Piyar Singh was in the employment of the company for some time during relevant period.

1933

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

However, the name of the father of the petitioner is Madhu Sudan Singh. Therefore, in the absence

of original gate pass, it cannot be said that Ex. PA was issued to the petitioner by the respondent

company. On the other hand, the respondent has produced the attendance register of its workers and

staff for the month of May 2006 to March, 2007 Ex. RW-2/3 and the register of casual workers for

the period w.e.f. October, 2006 to December, 2006. However, the perusal of the same shows that

the name of the petitioner does not find mention in the aforesaid registers. The respondent has also

produced the copy of the ESIC return of contribution for the period w.e.f. 1.4.2006 to 30.9.2007

and copy of submission of monthly PF contribution from April 2006 to March, 2007 in which the

names of the employees of the company have been mentioned but the name of the petitioner does

not reflect in the aforesaid documents.

14. Therefore, in view of the entire evidence on record, it cannot be said that the petitioner

was ever employed by the respondent and that there existed any relationship of employee and

employer between the petitioner and respondent company. Hence, it cannot be said that that the

termination of the services of the petitioner was in violation of the provisions of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 as such both these issues are decided in favour of the respondent and against the

petitioner.

Issue no. 3.

15. During the course of arguments, this issue was not pressed by the learned counsel for

the respondent, hence, the same is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

Relief.

As a sequel to my findings on the aforesaid issues, the claim of the petitioner fails and is

hereby dismissed. Consequently, the reference stands answered against the petitioner and in favour

of the respondent. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for publication in

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

Announced in the open Court today on this 27th Day of April, 2017.

(SUSHIL KUKREJA),

Presiding Judge,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla.

__________

IN THE COURT OF SUSHIL KUKREJA, PRESIDING JUDGE, HP INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA

Ref. no.

:

46 of 2014.

Instituted on

:

10.6.2014.

Decided on

:

26.4.2017.

Layak Ram S/o Shri Mansa Ram, R/o Village Kyarad, P.O Dhar-ke-ber, Tehsil Kasauli,

District Solan, HP through Shri J.C Bhardwaj, President HP AITUC, HQ Saproon, Solan.

...Petitioner.

1934

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

VS.

M/s Green Hills Engineering College, Gandhigram Kumarhatti, District Solan, HP through

its Principal.

...Respondent.

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

For petitioner : Shri J.C Bhardwaj, AR.

For respondent : Shri Vishal Panwar, Advocate.

AWARD

The reference for adjudication, sent by the appropriate government, is as under:

"Whether termination of the services of Shri Layak Ram S/o Shri Mansa Ram, R/o

Village Kyarad, P.O Dhar-ke-ber, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, HP employed as

security guard w.e.f. 20.3.2010 by the management of M/s Principal Green Hills

Engineering College, Gandhigram Kumarhatti, District Solan, HP without complying

with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not,

what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the

above workman is entitled to from the above college/management?”

2. Facts, in brief are that the petitioner was employed in the respondent college as

security guard during the month of September, 2007 and his services were terminated without

assigning any reason and without any justification despite the fact that he had completed more than

240 working days preceding his termination and his termination was against the mandatory

provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act). It is

further stated that the respondent had obtained the signatures of the petitioner on blank papers

many times under duress in compelling circumstances while exercising colorable employer rights

and now it is apprehended that those could be mis-utilized by the respondent to fulfill ulterior

motives and even the termination orders of the petitioner are not speaking orders and as such those

are null, void and inoperative and he had been punished for extraneous reasons as he was never

served with any show cause notice, chargesheet and even no enquiry was ever held against him. It

is also stated that the services of junior workmen in the same establishment were retained by the

respondent while terminating the services of the petitioner in violation of the provisions of section

25-G and 25-H of the Act. The action of the respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner

is deplorable as no opportunity of being heard was afforded to him. Against this backdrop a prayer

has been made that the petitioner be reinstated in service with all the consequential service benefits

including back-wages.

3.

By filing reply, the respondent contested the claim of the petitioner wherein

preliminary objections have been taken that the reference is neither competent nor maintainable and

that vide resignation letter dated 20.3.2010, the petitioner himself resigned from the post of security

guard. On merits, it has been asserted that the petitioner had been appointed as a security guard by

the respondent in the month of September, 2007 on a salary of ` 3900/- per month but his services

were never terminated by the respondent who at his own has put up resignation from the post of

security guard on 20.3.2010, hence, the provisions of the Act are not attracted in the instant case.

Since, the resignation of the petitioner was accepted on 22.3.2010, hence, the requirement of

serving show cause notice and chargesheet upon him does not arise. The respondent prayed or the

dismissal of the claim petition.

1935

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

4.

By filing rejoinder, the petitioner reiterated his allegations by denying those of the

respondent.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 9.5.2016.

1. Whether the termination of the services of the petitioner who was employed as

security guard w.e.f. 20.3.2010 by the respondent without following the

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

alleged?

...OPP.

2.

If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, to what relief of service benefits the

petitioner is entitled?

...OPP.

3. Whether the petition is neither competent nor maintainable as alleged?

OPR.

4. Relief.

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

of the case carefully.

7.

For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing issues for determination

my findings on the aforesaid issues are as under.—

Issue no.1

No.

Issue no.2

Becomes redundant.

Issue no.3

No.

Relief.

Reference answered in favour of the respondent and against the

petitioner per operative part of award.

Reasons for findings

Issue no.1

8. The AR for the petitioner contended that the services of the petitioner have been

terminated illegally without following the mandatory provisions of the Act as neither any notice

was given to the petitioner nor any compensation was paid to him despite the fact that he had

completed more than 240 working days in each calendar year. He further contended that after the

termination of the petitioner, the respondent retained the persons juniors to him and even engaged

fresh hands.

9.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the services

of the petitioner have never been terminated by the respondent, who himself tendered his

resignation on 20.3.2010 which was duly accepted by the respondent on 22.3.2010 as per rules,

hence, there is no question of terminating the services of the petitioner.

10. To prove issue no.1, the petitioner stepped into the witness box as PW-1 to depose that

he was engaged as security guard on September, 2007 by the respondent and continued as such till

20.3.2010. He had completed more than 240 days in each calendar year and preceding 12 months

before his termination. He further deposed that the workers of the respondent had also raised a

1936

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

demand notice Ex. PW-1/A in December, 2010 on which the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer,

Solan had directed the Labour Inspector to take appropriate action. He also deposed that neither any

notice/chargesheet was issued nor any enquiry was conducted before terminating his services and

no compensation was paid to him and even the salary for the period from 1st March, to 20th March,

2010 had also not been paid to him. His juniors namely Vinod Kumar and Parmanand etc., have

been retained. In cross-examination, he admitted that he was getting ` 3900/- per month as wages.

He denied that he had left the job at his own and that on 20.3.2010, he had written a resignation

letter which was accepted by the respondent on 22.3.2010. He also denied that his services were

never terminated.

11. The respondent has examined one Shri Jeet Singh as RW-1, who tendered in evidence

his affidavit Ex. RW-1/A wherein he reiterated almost all the averments as stated in the reply. He

also tendered in evidence authority letter Ex. RW-1/B and copy of resignation letter dated

20.3.2010 Ex. RW-1/C. In cross-examination, he denied that the petitioner had never given any

resignation letter and the letter Ex. RW-1/C is forged. He further denied that letter Ex. RW-1/C

does not bear the signatures of the petitioner. He admitted that no letter has been issued to the

petitioner regarding acceptance of his resignation. He admitted that after 20.3.2010, the respondent

had engaged another security guard. He further admitted that no compensation was paid to the

petitioner.

12. I have closely scrutinized the entire evidence, on record, and from the closer scrutiny

thereof it has become clear that the petitioner was employed with the respondent college as security

guard in the month of September, 2007 on a monthly salary of ` 3900/- and he tendered his

resignation from the post of security guard on 20.3.2010 vide resignation letter Ex. RW-1/C. The

perusal of resignation letter Ex. RW-1/C shows that the same has been signed by the petitioner on

20.3.2010 and it was duly accepted by the respondent on 22.3.2010. Though, in cross-examination,

a suggestion has been put to RW-1 that the letter Ex. RW-1/C does not bear the signatures of the

petitioner. However, neither in the claim petition nor in the rejoinder it has been pleaded by the

petitioner that the resignation letter does not bear his signatures. Rather, in the claim petition, the

petitioner has taken a specific plea that the respondent had obtained his signatures on various blank

papers many times under duress in compelling circumstances meaning thereby that the petitioner is

admitting his signatures on the letter Ex. RW-1/C. However, no evidence has been led by the

petitioner to this effect that his signatures have been obtained by the respondent on various blank

papers many times under duress in compelling circumstances.

13. The AR for the petitioner next contended that since the acceptance of the resignation

was not communicated to the petitioner, therefore, the resignation has become inoperative. He also

placed reliance upon the cross-examination of RW-1 wherein he admitted that no letter has been

issued to the petitioner regarding acceptance of his resignation. However, this contention of the AR

for the petitioner is devoid of any force because non-communication of the acceptance does not

make the resignation in-operative. In AIR 2007 SC 2719, North Zone Cultural Centre and

another Vs. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that "non-

communication of the acceptance does not make the resignation in-operative provided there is in

fact an acceptance before the withdrawal." Meaning there by that the resignation can be withdrawn

before its acceptance and the same cannot be withdrawn by an employee after it has been accepted

even though not communicated to the employee. In the present case, the perusal of the resignation

letter Ex. RW-1/C shows that it has been duly accepted by the respondent on 22.3.2010. It is not the

case of the petitioner that the resignation was withdrawn by him at any point of time before its

acceptance. Therefore, in view of the law laid down (supra), the non-communication of the

acceptance does not make the resignation in-operative as contended by the AR for the petitioner.

Moreover, no evidence has been led by the petitioner that he had completed 240 days in each

calendar year as admitted by him in cross-examination. He admitted that he had not annexed any

1937

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

record about the completion of 240 days in each calendar year. There is no material on record

which could show that the petitioner has completed 240 working days in twelve calendar months

preceding his termination. In 2009 (120) FLR 1007 incase titled as Relip Nagarpalika Vs. Babuji

Gabhaji Thakore and others , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

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

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

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

In AIR 2006 S.C. 110 case titled as Surindernagar District Panchyat V/s Dayabhai Amar

Singh, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:—

“Incase workman claims to have worked for more than 10 years as daily wager. Apart

from oral evidence workman has not produced any evidence to prove fact that he has

worked for 240 days. No proof of receipt of salary or wages or any record or order in that

regard was produced: no co-worker was examined; muster roll produced by employer has

not been contradicted. Workman has failed to discharge his burden that he was in

employment for 240 days during preceding 12 months of date of termination of his

service. Workman not entitled for protection of Section 25-F before his service was

terminated.”

A bare perusal of the extract of the judgment re-produced, hereinabove, shows that the

burden to prove completion of 240 days service lies on the workman and this burden is discharged

on workman stepping in the witness box and adducing cogent evidence. However, in the instant

case, the petitioner has failed to prove on record that he had put in 240 days in twelve calendar

months preceding his termination. Hence, the case of the petitioner does not fall under section 25-F

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such no protection of section 25-F can be granted to the

petitioner.

14. The AR for the petitioner lastly contended that the termination of the services of the

petitioner is in violation of the provisions of section 25-G and 25-H of the Act. However, since it

has been proved on record that the petitioner has himself tendered his resignation from the post of

security guard, hence, the case of the petitioner does not come in the ambit of provisions of sections

25-G and 25-H of the Act.

15. Thus, in view of my foregoing discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the

termination of the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 20.3.2010 by the respondent is not illegal and

unjustified, who himself had tendered his resignation which was duly accepted by the respondent

company. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner.

Issue no. 2.

16. Since, the petitioner has failed to prove issue no.1 above, this issue becomes

redundant.

Issue No. 3.

17. In support of this issue, no evidence has been led by the respondent. However, the

petitioner has filed this claim petition pursuant to the reference made by the appropriate

government to this Court for adjudication and I find nothing wrong with this petition which is

perfectly maintainable. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the

respondent.

1938

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

Relief.

As a sequel to my above discussion and findings on issues no.1 to 3, the claim of the

petitioner fails and is hereby dismissed and as such the reference is answered in favour of the

respondent and against the petitioner. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate

government for publication in the official gazette. File, after completion, be consigned to records.

Announced in the open Court today on this 26th day of April, 2017.

(SUSHIL KUKREJA),

Presiding Judge,

Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Shimla.

_________

IN THE COURT OF SUSHIL KUKREJA, PRESIDING JUDGE, HP INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA

Ref. no.

:

48 of 2014.

Instituted on

:

10.6.2014.

Decided on

:

26.4.2017.

Lokesh Chand S/o Shri Padam Singh R/o Village Tarol, P.O Gahighat, Tehsil Kasauli,

District Solan, HP through Shri J.C Bhardwaj, President HP AITUC, HQ Saproon, Solan.

...Petitioner.

VS.

M/s Green Hills Engineering College, Gandhigram Kumarhatti, District Solan, HP through

its Principal.

...Respondent.

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

For petitioner : Shri J.C Bhardwaj, AR.

For respondent : Shri Vishal Panwar, Advocate.

AWARD

The reference for adjudication, sent by the appropriate government, is as under:

"Whether termination of the services of Shri Lokesh Chand S/o Shri Padam Singh,

R/o Village Tarol, P.O Gahighatt, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, HP employed as

security guard w.e.f. 20.3.2010 by the management of M/s Principal Green Hills

Engineering College, Gandhigram Kumarhatti, District Solan, HP without complying

with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not,

what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the

above workman is entitled to from the above college/management?”

1939

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

2. Facts, in brief are that the petitioner was employed in the respondent college as

security guard during the month of September, 2007 and his services were terminated without

assigning any reason and without any justification despite the fact that he had completed more than

240 working days preceding his termination and his termination was against the mandatory

provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act). It is

further stated that the respondent had obtained the signatures of the petitioner on blank papers

many times under duress in compelling circumstances while exercising colorable employer rights

and now it is apprehended that those could be mis-utilized by the respondent to fulfill ulterior

motives and even the termination orders of the petitioner are not speaking orders and as such those

are null, void and inoperative and he had been punished for extraneous reasons as he was never

served with any show cause notice, chargesheet and even no enquiry was ever held against him. It

is also stated that the services of junior workmen in the same establishment were retained by the

respondent while terminating the services of the petitioner in violation of the provisions of section

25-G and 25-H of the Act. The action of the respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner

is deplorable as no opportunity of being heard was afforded to him. Against this backdrop a prayer

has been made that the petitioner be reinstated in service with all the consequential service benefits

including back-wages.

3. By filing reply, the respondent contested the claim of the petitioner wherein

preliminary objections have been taken that the reference is neither competent nor maintainable and

that vide resignation letter dated 20.3.2010, the petitioner himself resigned from the post of security

guard. On merits, it has been asserted that the petitioner had been appointed as a security guard by

the respondent in the month of September, 2007 on a salary of `3900/- per month but his services

were never terminated by the respondent who at his own has put up resignation from the post of

security guard on 20.3.2010, hence, the provisions of the Act are not attracted in the instant case.

Since, the resignation of the petitioner was accepted on 22.3.2010, hence, the requirement of

serving show cause notice and chargesheet upon him does not arise. The respondent prayed or the

dismissal of the claim petition.

4.

By filing rejoinder, the petitioner reiterated his allegations by denying those of the

respondent.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 9.5.2016.

1.

Whether the termination of the services of the petitioner who was employed as

security guard w.e.f. 20.3.2010 by the respondent without following the

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

alleged?

...OPP.

2. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, to what relief of service benefits the

petitioner is entitled?

...OPP.

3. Whether the petition is neither competent nor maintainable as alleged?

...OPR.

4. Relief.

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

of the case carefully.

17. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing issues for determination my

findings on the aforesaid issues are as under.

Issue no. 1 No.

1940

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

Issue no. 2 Becomes redundant.

Issue no. 3 No.

Relief.

Reference answered in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner

per operative part of award.

Reasons for findings

Issue no.1

8. The AR for the petitioner contended that the services of the petitioner have been

terminated illegally without following the mandatory provisions of the Act as neither any notice

was given to the petitioner nor any compensation was paid to him despite the fact that he had

completed more than 240 working days in each calendar year. He further contended that after the

termination of the petitioner, the respondent retained the persons juniors to him and even engaged

fresh hands.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the services

of the petitioner have never been terminated by the respondent, who himself tendered his

resignation on 20.3.2010 which was duly accepted by the respondent on 22.3.2010 as per rules,

hence, there is no question of terminating the services of the petitioner.

10. To prove issue no.1, the petitioner stepped into the witness box as PW-1 to depose that

he was engaged as security guard on September, 2007 by the respondent and continued as such till

20.3.2010. He had completed more than 240 days in each calendar year and preceding 12 months

before his termination. He further deposed that the workers of the respondent had also raised a

demand notice Ex. PW-1/B in December, 2010 on which the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer,

Solan had directed the Labour Inspector to take appropriate action. He also deposed that neither any

notice/chargesheet was issued nor any enquiry was conducted before terminating his services and

no compensation was paid to him and even the salary for the period from 1st March, to 20th March,

2010 had also not been paid to him. His juniors namely Vinod Kumar and Parmanand etc., have

been retained. In cross-examination, he admitted that he was getting ` 3900/- per month as wages.

He denied that he had left the job at his own and that on 20.3.2010, he had written a resignation

letter which was accepted by the respondent on 22.3.2010. He also denied that his services were

never terminated.

11. The respondent has examined one Shri Jeet Singh as RW-1, who tendered in evidence

his affidavit Ex. RW-1/A wherein he reiterated almost all the averments as stated in the reply. He

also tendered in evidence authority letter Ex. RW-1/B and copy of resignation letter dated

20.3.2010 Ex. RW-1/C. In cross-examination, he denied that the petitioner had never given any

resignation letter and the letter Ex. RW-1/C is forged. He further denied that letter Ex. RW-1/C

does not bear the signatures of the petitioner. He admitted that no letter has been issued to the

petitioner regarding acceptance of his resignation. He admitted that after 20.3.2010, the respondent

had engaged another security guard. He further admitted that no compensation was paid to the

petitioner.

12. I have closely scrutinized the entire evidence, on record, and from the closer scrutiny

thereof it has become clear that the petitioner was employed with the respondent college as security

guard in the month of September, 2007 on a monthly salary of `3900/- and he tendered his

resignation from the post of security guard on 20.3.2010 vide resignation letter Ex. RW-1/C. The

perusal of resignation letter Ex. RW-1/C shows that the same has been signed by the petitioner on

1941

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

20.3.2010 and it was duly accepted by the respondent on 22.3.2010. Though, in cross-examination,

a suggestion has been put to RW-1 that the letter Ex. RW-1/C does not bear the signatures of the

petitioner. However, neither in the claim petition nor in the rejoinder it has been pleaded by the

petitioner that the resignation letter does not bear his signatures. Rather, in the claim petition, the

petitioner has taken a specific plea that the respondent had obtained his signatures on various blank

papers many times under duress in compelling circumstances meaning thereby that the petitioner is

admitting his signatures on the letter Ex. RW-1/C. However, no evidence has been led by the

petitioner to this effect that his signatures have been obtained by the respondent on various blank

papers many times under duress in compelling circumstances.

13. The AR for the petitioner next contended that since the acceptance of the resignation

was not communicated to the petitioner, therefore, the resignation has become inoperative. He also

placed reliance upon the cross-examination of RW-1 wherein he admitted that no letter has been

issued to the petitioner regarding acceptance of his resignation. However, this contention of the AR

for the petitioner is devoid of any force because non-communication of the acceptance does not

make the resignation in-operative. In AIR 2007 SC 2719, North Zone Cultural Centre and

another Vs. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that "non-

communication of the acceptance does not make the resignation in-operative provided there is in

fact an acceptance before the withdrawal." Meaning there by that the resignation can be withdrawn

before its acceptance and the same cannot be withdrawn by an employee after it has been accepted

even though not communicated to the employee. In the present case, the perusal of the resignation

letter Ex. RW-1/C shows that it has been duly accepted by the respondent on 22.3.2010. It is not the

case of the petitioner that the resignation was withdrawn by him at any point of time before its

acceptance. Therefore, in view of the law laid down (supra), the non-communication of the

acceptance does not make the resignation in-operative as contended by the AR for the petitioner.

Moreover, no evidence has been led by the petitioner that he had completed 240 days in each

calendar year as admitted by him in cross-examination. He admitted that he had not annexed any

record about the completion of 240 days in each calendar year. There is no material on record

which could show that the petitioner has completed 240 working days in twelve calendar months

preceding his termination. In 2009 (120) FLR 1007 incase titled as Relip Nagarpalika Vs. Babuji

Gabhaji Thakore and others , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

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

for 240 days for the preceding one year and it is for the workman to adduce evidence

apart from examining himself to prove the factum of being in employment of the

employer.”

In AIR 2006 S.C. 110 case titled as Surindernagar District Panchyat V/s Dayabhai Amar

Singh, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:—

“Incase workman claims to have worked for more than 10 years as daily wager. Apart

from oral evidence workman has not produced any evidence to prove fact that he has

worked for 240 days. No proof of receipt of salary or wages or any record or order in

that regard was produced: no co-worker was examined; muster roll produced by

employer has not been contradicted. Workman has failed to discharge his burden that

he was in employment for 240 days during preceding 12 months of date of termination

of his service. Workman not entitled for protection of Section 25-F before his service

was terminated.”

A bare perusal of the extract of the judgment re-produced, hereinabove, shows that the

burden to prove completion of 240 days service lies on the workman and this burden is discharged

on workman stepping in the witness box and adducing cogent evidence. However, in the instant

1942

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

case, the petitioner has failed to prove on record that he had put in 240 days in twelve calendar

months preceding his termination. Hence, the case of the petitioner does not fall under section 25-F

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such no protection of section 25-F can be granted to the

petitioner.

14. The AR for the petitioner lastly contended that the termination of the services of the

petitioner is in violation of the provisions of section 25-G and 25-H of the Act. However, since it

has been proved on record that the petitioner has himself tendered his resignation from the post of

security guard, hence, the case of the petitioner does not come in the ambit of provisions of sections

25-G and 25- H of the Act.

15. Thus, in view of my foregoing discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the

termination of the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 20.3.2010 by the respondent is not illegal and

unjustified, who himself had tendered his resignation which was duly accepted by the respondent

company. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner.

Issue no. 2.

16. Since, the petitioner has failed to prove issue no.1 above, this issue becomes

redundant.

Issue No. 3.

17. In support of this issue, no evidence has been led by the respondent. However, the

petitioner has filed this claim petition pursuant to the reference made by the appropriate

government to this Court for adjudication and I find nothing wrong with this petition which is

perfectly maintainable. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the

respondent.

Relief.

As a sequel to my above discussion and findings on issues no.1 to 3, the claim of the

petitioner fails and is hereby dismissed and as such the reference is answered in favour of the

respondent and against the petitioner. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate

government for publication in the official gazette. File, after completion, be consigned to records.

Announced in the open Court today on this 26th day of April, 2017.

(SUSHIL KUKREJA),

Presiding Judge,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla.

___________

IN THE COURT OF SUSHIL KUKREJA, PRESIDING JUDGE, HP INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA

Ref. no.

:

81 of 2015.

Instituted on :

1.12.2015.

Decided on :

28.4.2017.

1943

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

Vikram Singh S/o Shri Roshan Lal R/o Village & P.O Thana Tehsil Chirgaon, District

Shimla, HP.

...Petitioner.

VS.

1. The Managing Director, HPTDC Ltd., Ritiz Annexe, The Ridge, Shimla-1.

2. The Manager, HPTDC Ltd., Hotel Kinnur kailash Kalpa (Kinnaur), District Kinnaur,

HP.

...Respondents.

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

For petitioner : Shri R.K Khidtta, Advocate.

For respondents : Shri Virender Sharma, Advocate.

AWARD

The reference for adjudication, sent by the appropriate government, is as under:

"Whether termination of the services of Shri Vikram Singh S/o Shri Roshan Lal R/o

Village & P.O Thana Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, HP by (i) The Managing

Director, HPTDC Ltd., Ritiz Annexe, The Ridge, Shimla-1 (ii) The Manager, HPTDC

Ltd., Hotel Kinnur kailash Kalpa (Kinnaur), District Kinnaur, HP w.e.f. 16.7.2013

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

justified? If not, to what relief of reinstatement, back-wages, compensation, seniority

and other service benefits the above aggrieved workman is entitled to from the above

employer?”

2.

In nutshell the case of the petitioner is that initially he was engaged on contract basis

as utility worker on compassionate ground by the respondents w.e.f. 4.5.2012 and worked as such

till 31.7.2012 and thereafter his services were illegally terminated by the respondents without

complying with the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred

to as Act). It is further stated that the petitioner was re-engaged w.e.f. 10.9.2012 and worked as

such till 31.12.2012 and thereafter his services were again terminated by the respondents without

following the provisions of the Act. Then, the petitioner was again re-engaged w.e.f. 20.4.2013 and

worked as such till 15.7.2013 and thereafter his services were again terminated. It is also stated that

the father of the petitioner was working as regular employee with the respondents at Dharamshala

who died during service period on 9.3.1999 and as per the Policy, the petitioner applied for the job

on compassionate ground and as such, the respondent offered the job of utility worker to the

petitioner and he joined the same on 4.5.2012. Since, neither retrenchment notice nor compensation

has been paid to the petitioner before terminating his service, hence, his termination is in violation

of the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. The work and conduct of the petitioner was always

appreciated by the officials and nothing contrary was ever conveyed to him and even no

chargesheet was served to him during his employment. That the petitioner had completed 240 days

in each calendar year, hence, his termination is totally illegal and even the respondents have

engaged other persons on compassionate ground who are still working with the corporation

whereas the services of the petitioner have been illegally terminated. That after the termination of

the services of the petitioner, he visited the office of the respondents number of times but of no

avail and even the work which the petitioner was performing is still available with the respondents.

That the petitioner was entitled to regular job on compassionate ground as his father was serving

with the respondents for the last 18 years on regular basis and died during his duty period and the

1944

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

breaks given by the respondents to the petitioner are totally illegal and even the petitioner is

unemployed w.e.f. 16.7.2013 and is nowhere gainfully employed. Against this back-drop a prayer

has been made that the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service along-with all

consequential benefits including back-wages.

3. By filing reply, the respondents contested the claim of the petitioner wherein

preliminary objections have been taken qua maintainability, cause of action, estoppel and that the

petition is bad for mis-joinder of parties. On merits, it has been it has been asserted that the

petitioner was engaged against the specific seasonal requirement from 4.5.2012 to 31.7.2012 for a

specific period of 89 days and on the completion of 89 days, he was disengaged. It is denied that

the petitioner was engaged on contract basis as utility worker on compassionate grounds. It is

further denied that the petitioner was illegally terminated by the respondents without following the

mandatory provisions of the Act. It is asserted that there was neither any question of satisfactory

work of the petitioner nor any departmental enquiry could be initiated against him as he was not a

permanent employee of the respondent and the nature of duties of the petitioner was seasonal and

not on daily basis which comes to an end automatically on the completion of the work. It is denied

that the petitioner had completed 240 days in a calendar year and that he visited the office of the

respondents for his reengagement. It is asserted that the petitioner has no right to continue up to his

superannuation in the seasonal job and even the petitioner does not fall within the definition of

employee as provided under the Act as his engagement was purely for specific seasonal work for

specific period of 89 days. The respondent prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition.

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

respondent.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 1.10.2015.

5. Whether the termination of the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 16.7.2013 is in

violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as alleged? ...OPP.

6. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, to what relief of service benefits the

petitioner is entitled?

...OPP.

7. Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged?

...OPR.

8. Whether the petitioner is estopped to file the present petition due to his own acts,

deeds and conduct?

...OPR.

9. Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder of parties as alleged?

...OPR.

10. Relief.

6.

Before, I proceed further, it is important to mention here that earlier the petitioner had

filed the petition under section 2-A of the Act as the Labour Commissioner has not referred the

dispute to this Court for adjudication even after the expiry of 45 days which was registered as

Application no. 88 of 2014 and this Court proceed to record the proceedings in application no.

88/2014 but since the dispute in question was referred by the Government under reference, hence,

vide order dated 30.12.2015 passed in application no. 88 of 2014, the petition along-with

documents was ordered to be clubbed with the present reference.

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

of the case carefully.

1945

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

8.

For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing issues for determination

my findings on the aforesaid issues are as under.

Issue no. 1

No.

Issue no. 2

Becomes redundant.

Issue no. 3

No.

Issue no. 4.

No.

Issue no. 5.

No.

Relief.

Reference answered in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner

per operative part of award.

Reasons for findings.

Issues no.1.

9.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the services of the petitioner had

been terminated by the respondents illegally without serving him any notice as required under

section 25-F of the Act especially when he had completed more than 240 days in each calendar

year. He further contended that many junior persons have been retained and fresh hands have been

engaged after the termination of the petitioner in violation of the provisions of sections 25-G and

25-H of the Act.

10. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the respondents contended that the services of the

petitioner had been engaged only for a specific period for specific and seasonal work at first

instance and thereafter the same was extended from time to time as per the requirement but the

petitioner never worked beyond 89 days at one stretch and the services of the petitioner were never

terminated illegally by the respondents.

11. To prove issue no.1, the petitioner stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and tendered

in evidence his affidavit Ex. PW-1/A wherein he reiterated almost all the averments as stated in the

claim petition. He also tendered in evidence the copy of demand notice Ex. PW-1/B and copy of

reply to demand notice Ex. PW-1/C. In cross-examination, he admitted that he was engaged as

utility worker on contract for seasonal work w.e.f. 4.5.2012 to 31.7.2012 for 89 days but clarified

that he was not engaged for seasonal work. He denied that his services were again engaged as a

utility worker on contract basis for seasonal work t he had not filed any record pertaining to

completion of 240 days in a year. He also denied that no fresh persons were engaged after his

termination on 15.7.2013. He admitted that the persons namely Pradeep Kumar, Tara Chand and

Ravi Shankar were engaged prior to him. He further admitted that the agreements Ex. RX-1 Ex.

RX-3 were signed by him but denied that he had signed the aforesaid agreements after reading its

contents.

12. PW-2, clerk from the office of HPTDC Rampur has produced the list of appointments

given/pending on the basis of compassionate grounds w.e.f. 2002 till 5.8.2015 Ex. PW-2/A and the

records showing the appointments/engagements given to Pradeep Kumar, Ravi Shankar and Tara

Chand are Ex. PW-2/B to Ex. PW-2/D. In cross-examination, he stated that the petitioner was

appointed as utility worker on seasonal basis on executing the affidavits for a period of 89 days and

he was called upon to work w.e.f. 15.9.2012 to 15.11.2012 but he did not report for work.

1946

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

13. The respondents examined one Shri Kahna Singh, Clerk as RW-1 who stated the

petitioner was engaged as utility worker on seasonal basis at HPTDC Kinnar Kailash Kalpa on

4.5.2012 and total working days of the petitioner in the year 2012 are 201 and in the year, 2013, the

working days of the petitioner are 85 as per the certificate Ex. RW-1/B. He further deposed that in

September, 2013, the petitioner was again called telephonically for doing seasonal work but he did

not come to join the duties. In cross-examination, he denied that record Ex. RW-1/B has not been

prepared by him. He denied that the petitioner was engaged on contract basis in the month of May,

2012. He admitted that the petitioner had worked continuously from 4.5.2012 to 31.7.2012 and

thereafter his services were terminated without any notice and any compensation. He further

admitted that the petitioner was reengaged on 10.9.2012 and he worked continuously upto

30.12.2012 and thereafter again his services were terminated without any notice and compensation.

He also admitted that the petitioner was also engaged in the month of April, 2013 and he worked

continuously upto 14.7.2013 and again his services were terminated without notice and

compensation. He admitted that the petitioner had submitted all the documents complete in all

respects at HPTDC office at Shimla in the year, 2006 for compassionate appointment. He denied

that the petitioner was engaged on contract basis on 4.5.2012. He admitted that many persons were

engaged after the engagement of the petitioner and many junior persons to the petitioner are still in

service. He further admitted that no notice in writing was issued to the petitioner to join the duties

and that no enquiry was held against the petitioner. He also admitted that the work which the

petitioner was doing is still available and that Ex. PW-2/A is true and correct as per the record. He

admitted that Tara Chand was engaged after the petitioner and he is still in service and that some

other persons were also engaged on seasonal basis on compassionate ground after the death of the

father of the petitioner in the year, 1999.

14. I have closely scrutinized the entire evidence on record, and from the closer scrutiny

thereof, it has become clear that initially the petitioner was engaged as utility worker on seasonal

basis by the respondents on 4.5.2012 as per agreement Ex. RX-1. Thereafter, again his services

were engaged w.e.f. 10.9.2012 to 31.12.2012 vide agreement Ex. RX-2 and w.e.f. 20.4.2013 to

15.7.2013 vide agreement Ex. RX-3. The perusal of agreements Ex. RX-1 to Ex. RX-3 go to show

that his services were engaged purely on contractual basis and were to stand automatically

terminated on the completion of the contract period i.e after the completion of 89 days and that no

separate order/notice in this respect was required to be issued. It has also been admitted by

petitioner in his cross-examination that he was engaged as utility worker on contract basis for

seasonal work w.e.f. 4.5.2012 to 31.7.2012 for 89 days. He further admitted that the agreements Ex.

RX-1 to Ex. RX-3 were signed by him. The perusal of mandays chart Ex. RW-2/B shows that the

petitioner had worked only for 201 days in the year, 2012 and 85 days in the year, 2013

15. Hence, from the perusal of agreements Ex. RX-1 to Ex. RX-3, coupled with the

admission of petitioner, it stands duly proved on record that the petitioner had been engaged by the

respondents purely on contractual basis for a specific period on seasonal basis. The contract further

provides that the services of the petitioner would stand automatically terminated on the completion

of the period of the contract i.e. after the completion of 89 days and no separate notice was required

to be issued in this respect. In 2006 LLR 1233 SC in case titled as Vidya Vardhaka Sangha &

Anr. V. Y.D Deshpande &Ors, it has been held that:—

“The appointment made on probation/ad-hoc basis for a specific period of time comes

to an end by efflux of time and the person on such post can have no right to continue

on the post. When after having accepted the terms and conditions stipulated in the

appointment letter and allowed, the period for which they were appointed has been

elapsed by efflux of time, they cannot be permitted to challenge the validity of their

termination.

1947

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

It was also held in (2006) 6 SCC 221, case titled as Reserve Bank of India V. Gopinath

Sharma & Anr. that workman not appointed to any regular post but engaged on the basis of need

of work on day to day basis, had no right to the post. In 2006 (2) SCC 794 in case titled as

Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board V. Subhash Chand & Anr. the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has held as under:

“11.

The question as to whether Chapter V-A of the Act will apply or not would

be dependent on the issue as to whether an order of retrenchment comes within the

purview of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act or not. If the termination of service in view of

the exception contained in clauses (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act is not a

’retrenchment’, the question of applicability of Chapter V-A thereof would not arise.

12. Central Bank of India Vs. S. Stayam whereupon reliance was placed by Mr.

Singh, is itself an authority for the proposition that the definition of ’retrenchment’ as

contained in the said provision is wide. Once it is held that having regard to the nature

of termination of services it would not come within the purview of the said definition,

the question of applicability of Section 25-G of the Act does not arise.”

16. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner was engaged purely on contractual basis

for a specific period to do the seasonal work and on the expiry of period of contract, his services

stood automatically came to an end. Thus, on the basis of the above cited rulings and also having

regard to the entire evidence on record, it can safely be concluded that the petitioner had been

engaged purely on contractual basis, who was not retrenched within the meaning of section 2(oo) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The case of the petitioner falls within the exception as provided

under section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act as such the provisions of Chapter V-A of the Act would not

apply. Consequently, the petitioner has failed to prove that his services were terminated by the

respondents in violation of the provisions of the Act and the issue is decided in favour of the

respondents and against the petitioner.

Issue no.2.

18. Since, the petitioner has failed to prove issue no.1, above, this issue becomes

redundant.

Issue no.3.

19. At the time of arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent could not show as to why

this petition, in the present form is not maintainable. Accordingly by holding it to be maintainable,

my answer to this issue is in negative.

Issue no.4&5.

20. The onus to prove these issues was on the respondents, however, no evidence has been

led by the respondents to prove these issues. Therefore, both these issues are decided in favour of

the petitioner and against the respondents.

Relief.

As a sequel to my findings on the aforesaid issues, the claim of the petitioner fails and is

hereby dismissed. Consequently, the reference stands answered against the petitioner and in favour

of the respondents. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for publication

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

1948

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

Announced in the open Court today on this 28th Day of April, 2017.

(SUSHIL KUKREJA),

Presiding Judge,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla.

_________

27.4.2017.

Present : None for the petitioner.

Shri Sudhir Negi, Advocate vice csl. for respondent.

Case called repeatedly but none appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has

been listed for the service of the petitioner. The record reveals that the notices issued for the service

of the petitioner on the given address of reference itself, have not been received back either served

or un-served. The record further reveals that after the receipt of reference from the appropriate

government, the notices were issued to the parties to appear before this Court on 15.11.2016 on

which date petitioner appeared in person and ShriSudhirNegi, Advocate appeared for respondent

and the case was adjourned for filing of claim on 27.12.2016 on which date at the request of

petitioner the case was further adjourned for filing of claim on 21.2.2017 but thereafter from

21.2.2017, the petitioner failed to appear before this Court and then againthe notice had been issued

for the service of the petitioner but despite that,notice has not been received back either served or

un-served. Moreover, earlier the petitioner has appeared before this Court twice but thereafter

failed to appear before this Court and to file statement of claim which means that he is having the

knowledge about the pendency of the reference before this Court. Hence, to issue notice again for

the service of the petitioner and to further adjourn the case would be a futile exercise.In the light of

aforesaid facts, it appears that at present the petitioner is not interested to pursue his claim arising

out of the reference. Hence, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the reference on

the basis of material whichever is available on file.

The following reference has been received from appropriate government for adjudication:

“Whether alleged termination of services of ShriAmar Singh S/o late Shri Chet Ram

R/o Village Deothi, P.O Mashobra, Tehsil & District Shimla during December, 1994

by the Senior Executive Engineer, Shimla Electrical Division no.1 HPSEB Ltd. Shimla

171009 who had worked as beldar on daily wages only for 61 days during 1993 and 91

days during 1994 and has raised his industrial dispute after about 20 years allegedly

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

justified? If not, keeping in view the working period of 61 and 91 days during the

years, 1993 and 1994 respectively and delay of about 20 years in raising the industrial

dispute, what amount of back-wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation

the above ex-worker is entitled to from the above employer?”

From the aforesaid reference is the clear that the petitioner has alleged his termination

during December, 1994to be illegal and unjustified but despite issuance of several notices on the

given address of reference, none appeared on behalf of petitioner. The aforesaid reference also

makes it clear that the petitioner hadworked only for 61 and 91 days during the years, 1993 and

1994 respectively and raised the present dispute after about 20 years which seems that the

petitioner is not interested to pursue the present claim arising out of reference. Therefore, in the

1949

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

absence of any material on record, it cannot be said that the services of the petitioner had been

illegally terminated by the respondent during December, 1994. Hence, the reference is answered

against the petitioner and the award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this award be sent to the

appropriate government for publication in official gazette. File, after completion be consigned to

records.

Announced:

(SUSHIL KUKREJA),

27.4.2017.

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

________

25.4.2017.

Present

:

None.

Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but none appeared on behalf of

petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing of claim on behalf of the petitioner but

neither the petitioner nor his Advocate has put in appearance before this Court in order to file the

statement of claim despite the fact that on the previous date of hearing Shri Manohar Lal Sharma,

Advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioner. In the light of aforesaid facts, it appears that at

present the petitioner is not interested to pursue his claim arising out of the reference. Hence, this

Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the reference on the basis of material whichever

is available on file.

The following reference has been received from appropriate government for adjudication:

“Whether demand of ShriMadanLal S/o late ShriGopal Singh Village Bahali, P.O

Munish Bahali, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla regarding his re-engagement in

service before the management of M/s Ganga Dhari Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd., Gamba

House South End, Lane-IV, Phase-1 New Shimla 171009 (Site office M/s Ganga Dhari

Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd., Village Jongi, P.O MunishBahali, Tehsil Rampur, District

Shimla) after getting his full & final dues is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the

above workman is entitled to from the above management?”

From the aforesaid reference it is clear that the petitioner hasraised the demand regarding

his re-engagement after taking full and final dues from the respondent. The petitioner has failed to

appear before this Court and to file statement of claim which shows that he is not interested to

pursue the present claim arising out of reference. Therefore, in the absence of any material on

record, the reference is answered against the petitioner and the award is passed accordingly. Let a

copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for publication in official gazette. File,

after completion be consigned to records.

Announced:

(SUSHIL KUKREJA),

25.4.2017.

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

1950

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

25.4.2017.

Present

: None.

Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but none appeared on behalf of

petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing of claim on behalf of the petitioner but

neither the petitioner nor his Advocate has put in appearance before this Court in order to file the

statement of claim despite the fact that on the previous date of hearing Shri Manohar Lal Sharma,

Advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioner. In the light of aforesaid facts, it appears that at

present the petitioner is not interested to pursue his claim arising out of the reference. Hence, this

Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the reference on the basis of material whichever

is available on file.

The following reference has been received from appropriate government for adjudication:

“Whether demand of ShriPawan Kumar S/o late Shri Ganga Ram Village Jongi, P.O

Munish Bahali, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla regarding his re-engagement in service

before the management of M/s Ganga Dhari Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd., Gamba House South

End, Lane-IV, Phase-1 New Shimla 171009 (Site office M/s Ganga Dhari Hydro Power Pvt.

Ltd., Village Jongi, P.O MunishBahali, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla) after getting his full

& final dues is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the above workman is entitled to from

the above management?”

From the aforesaid reference it is clear that the petitioner hasraised the demand regarding

his re-engagement after taking full and final dues from the respondent. The petitioner has failed to

appear before this Court and to file statement of claim which shows that he is not interested to

pursue the present claim arising out of reference. Therefore, in the absence of any material on

record, the reference is answered against the petitioner and the award is passed accordingly. Let a

copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for publication in official gazette. File,

after completion be consigned to records.

Announced:

(SUSHIL KUKREJA),

25.4.2017.

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

__________

25.4.2017.

Present

: None.

Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but none appeared on behalf of

petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing of claim on behalf of the petitioner but

neither the petitioner nor his Advocate has put in appearance before this Court in order to file the

statement of claim despite the fact that on the previous date of hearing ShriManoharLal Sharma,

Advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioner.In the light of aforesaid facts, it appears that at

present the petitioner is not interested to pursue his claim arising out of the reference. Hence, this

Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the reference on the basis of material whichever

is available on file.

The following reference has been received from appropriate government for adjudication:

1951

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

“Whether demand of ShriSurjeet Singh S/o ShriGian Singh R/o Village & P.O

MunishBahali, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla regarding his re-engagement in service

before the management of M/s Ganga Dhari Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd., Gamba House

South End, Lane-IV, Phase-1 New Shimla 171009 (Site office M/s Ganga Dhari Hydro

Power Pvt. Ltd., Village Jongi, P.O MunishBahali, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla)

after getting his full & final dues is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the above

workman is entitled to from the above management?”

From the aforesaid reference it is clear that the petitioner hasraised the demand regarding

his re-engagement after taking full and final dues from the respondent. The petitioner has failed to

appear before this Court and to file statement of claim which shows that he is not interested to

pursue the present claim arising out of reference. Therefore, in the absence of any material on

record, the reference is answered against the petitioner and the award is passed accordingly. Let a

copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for publication in official gazette. File,

after completion be consigned to records.

Announced:

(SUSHIL KUKREJA),

25.4.2017.

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

__________

IN THE COURT OF SUSHIL KUKREJA, PRESIDING JUDGE, INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA, (H.P).

Ref. No.

:

58 of 2015.

Instituted on. :

7.9.2015.

Decided on :

19.4.2017.

Dinesh Chand S/o Shri Chonkia Ram R/o VPO Daro-Devria, Tehsil Pachhad, District

Sirmour, HP.

...Petitioner.

Vs.

1. The Registrar, Dr. Y.S Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry, Nauni, District

Solan, HP.

2.

The Associate Director (Seed Technology) Dr. Y.S Parmar University of Horticulture

& Forestry, Nauni, District Solan, HP.

...Respondents.

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

For petitioner : Shri J.C Bhardwaj, AR.

For respondents : Shri Balwant Thakur, Advocate.

1952

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

AWARD

The following reference has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication:

“Whether termination of the services of Shri Dinesh Chand S/o Shri Chonkia Ram R/o

VPO Daro-Devria, Tehsil Pachhad, District sirmour, HP w.e.f. 24.8.2011 by (1) The

Registrar, Dr. Y.S Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry Nauni 173230

District Solan, HP (2) The Associate Director (Seed Technology) Dr. Y.S Parmar

University of Horticulture and Forestry Nauni 173230 District Solan, HP without

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

not, to what relief of reinstatement, back-wages, compensation and other service

benefits

the

above

aggrieved

workman

is

entitled

to

from

the

above

employer/management?”

2.

Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that at first instance during the month of Jan., 2002

he was engaged as beldar by the respondents on contract basis and worked in the department of

Seed Technology and he remained as such till 24.8.2011 when his services were orally terminated

by the respondents without any justification and cogent reasons. The services of the petitioner are

continuous for the purpose of section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter

referred as to Act) as he remained in the employment for more than 10 years and had worked for

more than 240 days in twelve calendar months preceding his termination. The respondent did not

comply with the statutory and mandatory provisions of section 25-N/ 25-F of the Act as neither any

notice was served to the petitioner nor he was paid compensation in lieu of notice, hence, the

termination of the services of the petitioner is retrenchment under section 2(oo) of the Act. The

termination of the services of the petitioner based on surmises and conjectures as unfair labour

practice being voilative of section 25-G and 25-H of the Act as after his termination, juniors were

retained and new hands were recruited and deployed in his place. Against this back-drop a prayer

has been made that he be reinstated in service with full back-wages, seniority and other

consequential service benefits.

3. By filing reply, the respondents contested the claim of the petitioner wherein

preliminary objections had been taken that the claim is not sustainable and that being the

educational institute, the respondent university does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Act. On

merits, it has been asserted that as per standing instructions regarding engagement of labour on

contractual basis in respondents university, a labour was engaged on contractual basis to do manual

work on seasonal basis by needy departments of the University and the labour had been engaged

under adhoc projects funded by the outside agencies if there were excessive work due to increase in

the seasonal and existing category Demployees are unable to cope with it within the required period

and all engagements of labourers were made at a fixed salary on contractual basis for a period of 89

days in one spell and two spells in whole year after a break of at least 15 days in each spell for

essential seasonal jobs subject to availability of funds and as such the petitioner was engaged by

respondent no.2 vide copies of engagement letters dated 3.2.2011, 26.5.2011 and 27.5.2011 to

23.8.2011 as a labourer on contractual basis on certain terms and conditions under adhoc project

HMM-42-31. The petitioner also executed an agreement on judicial stamp paper that he should not

claim any right for regular of temporary adjustment in the University against any corresponding

post. It is further asserted that the petitioner was also engaged by the Professor and head

Department of Silviculture and Agro-Forestry as a labourer vide letters dated 19.3.2005, 16.8.2005

and 12.1.2006 and he was also engaged by the Professor and Head Department of Floriculture and

Landscaping under adhoc project w.e.f. 1.8.2002 to 30.9.2002, 5.8.2003 to 5.9.2003, 4.2.2004 to

30.4.2004, 17.5.2004 to 13.8.2004 as a albourer and thereafter he was engaged by the Professor and

head, Department fo Soil Science and Water Management under adhoc project w.e.f. 11.8.2007 to

16.4.2007, 7.5.2007 to 31.7.2007, 1.2.2008 to 29.3.2008, 16.4.2008 to 13.4.2007, 5.1.2009 to

1953

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

2.4.2009 and 4.5.2009 to 31.7.2009 as a labourer. It is denied that the petitioner was engaged as

beldar on contract basis during the month of Jan., 2002 in the department of Seed Technology and

remained continued till his termination of services on 24.8.2011. The petitioner was engaged under

different adhoc projects by the different departments as per the availability of funds and seasonal

needs in the farms of the department of Seed Technology and other departments and as such the

provisions of section 25-N/25-F does not apply in the instant case. The respondent prayed for the

dismissal of the claim petition.

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

respondent.

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

4.1.2016.

1.

Whether the termination of the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 24.8.2011 by the

respondents without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 is illegal and unjustified as alleged?

...OPP.

2.

If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative to what relief of service benefits the

petitioner is entitled to?

...OPP.

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged?

...OPR.

4. Whether the petition is barred by limitation as alleged?

...OPR.

Relief.

6. Besides having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, I have also gone through the

record of the case carefully.

7.

For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing issues for determination,

my findings on the aforesaid issues are as under.

Issue no.1

No.

Issue no.2

Becomes redundant.

Issue no.3

No.

Issue no.4

No.

Relief.

Reference answered in favour of the respondents and against the

petitioner per operative part of award.

Reasons for findings.

Issue no.1.

8. The AR for the petitioner contended that the services of the petitioner had been

terminated in violation of the provisions of the Act as before terminating his services, neither any

notice was issued nor any compensation was given to him despite the fact that he had completed

240 working days in each calendar year and the persons junior to him have been retained and even

fresh hands have been engaged in violation of the provisions of sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act.

1954

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents contended that as per standing

instructions regarding engagement of labour on contractual basis in respondents university, the

petitioner was engaged on contractual basis to do manual work on seasonal basis by needy

departments of the University and the petitioner had been engaged under adhoc projects funded by

the outside agencies. He further contended that since the engagement of the petitioner was purely

on contractual basis with the need of work and availability of funds, there was no question to

comply with the provisions of the Act.

10. The petitioner while appearing into the witness box as PW-1 has stated that initially he

was engaged as beldar by the respondents during the month of Jan., 2002 on contract basis and as

such he worked in the department of Seed technology till 24.8.2011. His services had been

terminated without issuing any notice and paying any compensation. He was given fictional breaks

during his service tenure and he had worked for 240 days in the preceding twelve calendar months.

He further stated that his juniors are still working and fresh hands have been appointed after his

termination and he is unemployed. In cross-examination, he denied that his services were engaged

for a project but admitted that he was engaged for a period of 89 days. He admitted that during his

tenure, he worked at different places in the university. He denied that he had worked under

different projects. He further denied that he had left the job at his own and that he was being paid

salary by the projects.

11. On the other hand, the respondents examined four RWs. RW-1 Shri Chaman Lal,

Technical Assistant Grade-1 Department of Floriculture and landscape Architecture of respondents

has stated that the petitioner had worked in Department of Floriculture and Landscape Architecture

of respondents in various spells as contractual labour under project NATP w.e.f. 1.8.2002 to

30.9.2002, 31.8.2003 to 5.9.2003, 29.2.2004 to 30.4.2004 and 31.5.2004 to 13.8.2004 as per

mandays chart Ex.RW- 1/A. He further stated that the respondent university is not engaging any

contractual labour since the year, 2013 and is outsourcing the work. In cross-examination, he

denied that the petitioner was appointed on daily wages in the year, 2002. He further denied that no

letter was issued to the petitioner that he was engaged for a specific work on contractual basis. He

also denied that the petitioner had worked continuously from August, 2002 to August, 2003 and

that many fresh hands were engaged after the termination of the services of the petitioner. He

admitted that the petitioner was working under the supervision of the University. He denied that the

mandays chart Ex. RW-1/A is wrongly prepared.

12. Shri Tilak Raj, Forest Ranger, Silviculture and Agro Forestry appeared into the witness

box as RW-2 to depose that the petitioner was engaged as contractual labour on 21.3.2005 under

FGI-053-20 Project vide letter Ex. RW-2/A. The petitioner had worked under project FCR-034-20

from 17.8.2005 to 14.1.2005 vide letter Ex. RW-2/B and thereafter the petitioner was engaged on

contractual basis under FGI-047-20 project from 12.1.2006 to 31.3.2006 vide letter Ex. RW-2/E

and vide Ex. RW-2/F he had also given an undertaking that he would not claim any seniority. In

cross-examination, he denied that letters Ex. RW-2/A, Ex. RW-2/B and Ex. RW-2/D were never

served on the petitioner. He admitted that no signatures of the petitioner have been obtained on the

aforesaid letters. He denied that the undertaking Ex. RW-2/C and Ex. RW-2/F do not bear the

signatures of the petitioner. He denied that the petitioner was engaged on daily wages. He admitted

that all the departments and projects are of the university.

13. Shri Kaka Ram, Field Assistant, G-1 stepped into the witness box as RW-3 to depose

that as per mandays chart Ex. RW-3/A, the petitioner was engaged in the department of Soil

Science on contractual basis under project from 1.1.2007 to 16.4.2007, 7.5.2007 to 31.7.2007, from

16.4.2008 to 13.7.2008, from 5.1.2009 to 2.4.2009 and from 4.5.2009 to 31.7.2009. The petitioner

was appointed on contractual basis under various projects for 89 days only and presently the work

in different projects is given on outsource basis. In cross-examination, he admitted that all the

1955

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

projects and departments are under the university and no retrenchment compensation was paid to

the petitioner. He denied that mandays chart Ex. RW-3/A has been wrongly prepared.

14. RW-4 Shri Khem Chand Sharma Senior Assistant has stated that the petitioner was a

contractual labour in some project and he had worked in their department w.e.f. 4.2.2011 till

3.5.2011 and from 23.5.2011 till 23.8.2011 as per mandays chart Ex. RW-4/A and the copy of

appointment letter issued to the petitioner is Ex. RW-4/B. The petitioner had given affidavits Ex.

RW-4/C and Ex. RW-4/D, dated 21.2.2011 and 1.6.2011. In cross-examination, he admitted that

the department of Seeds Science Technology is not closed and is having the same regular staff as it

was having earlier. He denied that the mandays chart Ex. RW-4/A is fabricated and that affidavits

Ex. RW-4/C and Ex. RW-4/D have been obtained by force. He admitted that after the year, 2011

various projects have been started in the university which are still going on.

15. I have closely scrutinized the entire evidence on record and from the closer scrutiny

thereof, it has become clear that petitioner had worked in the different departments of the

University under different projects as contractual labourer in different spells. The perusal of the

record goes to show that initially the petitioner was engaged under project NATP w.e.f. 1.8.2002 to

30.9.2002, 31.8.2003 to 5.9.2003, 29.2.2004 to 30.4.2004 and 31.5.2004 to 13.8.2004 as per

mandays chart Ex. RW-1/A. Thereafter the petitioner was engaged as contractual labour on

21.3.2005 under FGI-053-20 Project vide letter Ex. RW-2/A and then he had worked under FCR-

034-20 Project from 17.8.2005 to 14.1.2005 vide letter Ex. RW-2/D. The petitioner was also

engaged on contractual basis under FGI-047-20 Project from 12.1.2006 to 31.3.2006 vide letter Ex.

RW-2/E. Thereafter, the petitioner was engaged in the department of Soil Science on contractual

basis under project FMS-046-17 from 1.1.2007 to 16.4.2007, from 7.5.2007 to 31.7.2007, from

15.1.2008 to 29.2.2008, from 16.4.2008 to 13.7.2008, 5.1.2009 to 2.4.2009 and from 4.5.2009 to

31.7.2009 as per mandays chart Ex. RW-3/A. The petitioner was further engaged from 4.2.2011 to

3.5.2011 and from 23.5.2011 till 23.8.2011 as per manday chart Ex. RW-4/A. Therefore, from the

aforesaid material on record, it is clear that the petitioner had worked with the respondents in

different departments as a casual worker on contract basis. The petitioner has also given

undertaking Ex. RW-2/C and Ex. RW-2/F wherein he specifically stated that he was employed on

contractual basis. He also given affidavits Ex. RW-4/C and Ex. RW-4/D wherein he specifically

stated that he may be retrenched at any time without any notice and he shall not claim any right for

regular or temporary adjustment against any corresponding post. Hence, from the perusal of the

record, it stands duly proved that the services of the petitioner had been engaged by the respondents

on contract basis under different departments of the University in the different spells. In 2006 LLR

1233 SC in case titled as Vidya Vardhaka Sangha & Anr. V. Y.D Deshpande &Ors, it has been

held that:-

“The appointment made on probation/ad-hoc basis for a specific period of time comes to

an end by efflux of time and the person on such post can have no right to continue on the

post. When after having accepted the terms and conditions stipulated in the appointment

letter and allowed, the period for which they were appointed has been elapsed by efflux of

time, they cannot be permitted to challenge the validity of their termination.

It was also held in (2006) 6 SCC 221, case titled as Reserve Bank of India V. Gopinath

Sharma & Anr. that workman not appointed to any regular post but engaged on the basis of need

of work on day to day basis, had no right to the post. In 2006 (2) SCC 794 in case titled as

Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board V. Subhash Chand & Anr. the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has held as under:

“11. The question as to whether Chapter V-A of the Act will apply or not would be

dependent on the issue as to whether an order of retrenchment comes within the

1956

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

purview of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act or not. If the termination of service in view of

the exception contained in clauses (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act is not a

’retrenchment’, the question of applicability of Chapter V-A thereof would not arise.

12. Central Bank of India Vs. S. Stayam whereupon reliance was placed by Mr.

Singh, is itself an authority for the proposition that the definition of ’retrenchment’ as

contained in the said provision is wide. Once it is held that having regard to the nature

of termination of services it would not come within the purview of the said definition,

the question of applicability of Section 25-G of the Act does not arise.”

16. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis with

the different departments of the university under the different projects in the different spells. Thus,

on the basis of the above cited rulings and also having regard to the entire evidence on record, it

can safely be concluded that the petitioner had been engaged on contract basis, who was not

retrenched within the meaning of section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that his

case falls within the exception as prescribed under section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. Consequently, the

petitioner fails to prove this issue, to which my answer is in the negative.

Issue no.2.

17. Since, the petitioner has failed to prove issue no.1, this issue becomes redundant.

Issue no.3.

18. In support of this issue, no evidence has been led by the respondent. Moreover, I find

nothing wrong with this petition which is perfectly maintainable. Accordingly, issue no.3 is decided

in favour of petitioner and against the respondent.

Issue no.4.

19. In support of this issue no specific evidence has been led by the respondent which could

go to show that as to how the present petition is barred by limitation. However, the law on the point

is well settled that no limitation is prescribed either under the Industrial Disputes Act or under the

Limitation Act for raising the Industrial Dispute. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its various

judgments has held that the relief under the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be denied to the

workman merely on the ground of delay. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in in

(1999) 6 SCC 82, titled as Ajayab Singh Vs. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing –cum- processing

Service Society Limited and Another. that:—

“The provisions of Article 137 of Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the

proceedings 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”

It has also been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurmail Singh Vs. Principal

Government College of Education and others, (2009) 9 SCC 496 that mere delay in challenging

the termination would not be a bar to the adjudication of the matter but could only deprive the

appellant of his back wages for the period of delay in raising the termination issue. In a latest

judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2014, 10 SCC 301 titled as Raghubir Singh Vs.

General Manager, Haryana Roadways Hissar has held that Limitation Act has no application to

1957

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

reference made by the appropriate government to Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication

of existing industrial dispute. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as

under:

"16. 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 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 supplied).

17. 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".

Therefore, the aforesaid law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various context

makes the legal position clear that there is no limitation prescribed either under the Industrial

Disputes Act or under the Limitation Act for raising the industrial dispute. The provision of Article

137 of the schedule to the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the proceedings under

the Act and the relief under the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be denied to the workman merely on

the ground of delay. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the

respondents.

Relief.

As a sequel to my above discussion and findings on issue no.1 to 4, the claim of the

petitioner fails and is hereby dismissed. The reference is ordered to be answered in favour of the

respondents and against the petitioner. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate

government for publication in official gazette. File, after completion, be consigned to records.

Announced in the open Court today on this 19th Day of April, 2017.

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla.

1958

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

IN THE COURT OF SUSHIL KUKREJA, PRESIDING JUDGE, INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA, (H.P).

Ref. No.

:

9 of 2009.

Instituted on.

:

17.2.2009.

Decided on

:

18.4.2017.

1. Deep Ram S/o Shri Daulat Ram.

2.

Jivand Lal S/o Shri Tushu Ram.

3. O.P Thakur.

4.

Shiv Kumar S/o Shri Damodar Dass.

5. Sarswati Devi W/o Shri Damodar Dass.

6. Sunita W/o Shri Prabhu Ram.

7.

Meera Sharma.

8.

Resu Chandle.

9. Pushpa.

10. Lekh Ram S/o Shri Badru Ram.

11. Balvinder Singh S/o Shri Gian Singh.

12. Manohar Lal.

13. Ram Kali.

14. Heiu Dassi

(All are presently working with Himfed i.e respondent no.2).

...Petitioners.

Vs.

1. The Managing Director, Himfed Shimla-3, HP.

2. The Liquidator, Super Bazar Shimla.

...Respondents.

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

For petitioner : Shri R.L Sharma, Advocate.

For respondent no. 1 : Shri Hitender Thakur, Vice Shri P.P Chauhan, Advocate.

For respondent no. 2. : Already ex-parte.

AWARD

The following reference has been received from appropriate government for adjudication:

“Whether action of i) The Managing Director Himfed Shimla-3 ii) The Liquidator Super

Bazar Shimla 171001 not to pay the bonus to Shri Deep Ram S/o Shri Daulat Ram and 15 other

workers (list enclosed) for the period w.e.f. 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2004 is proper and justified? If not,

what amount of bonus the aggrieved workmen are entitled to from their employers?”

2. Briefly, the case of the petitioners is that vide agreement dated 18.6.1994, they were

deployed with the respondent no.1 by the respondent no.2 with certain conditions and thereafter the

entire PDS work/business was also transferred to respondent no.1 and the petitioners are still

continuing with same work under the control of respondent no.1. It is further stated that the bonus

1959

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

to the petitioners had not been paid w.e.f. 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2004 and upto 31.3.2009 despite

personal visits and representation. A legal notice dated 23.11.2004 had also been served upon the

respondents but no action had been taken. Since, the petitioners had not received the bonus w.e.f.

1.4.2001 to 31.3.2009, hence they are entitled to following amount:

Name of the workman

Amount of bonus per year

Total amount w.e.f. 1.4.2001 to

31.3.2009

Deep Ram

2600

23400

Jivand Lal

2400

21600

Shiv Kumar

2400

21600

Sarswati Devi

2900

26100

Sunita

3000

27000

O.P Thakur

3000

27000

Meera Sharma

2800

25000

Resu Chandle

2600

23400

Pushpa

2200

19800

Lekh Ram

2100

18900

Balvinder Singh

2100

18900

Manohar Lal

2000

18000

Ram Kali

2000

18000

Heiu Dassi

2000

18000

Total amount ...

3,24,900/-

Hence, the petitioners prayed for the release of bonus amounting to Rs. 3,24,900/- along-

with interest & 18 % per annum w.e.f. 1.4.2001 till date.

3. The respondent no.1 contested the claim by filing a reply wherein preliminary

objections qua locus standi, time barred and maintainability had been raised. On merits, it has been

asserted that on the request of respondent no.2, respondent no.1 agreed to run fair price shops on

management basis and as per clause 4 of the agreement it was agreed that the workers employed in

the running of twelve shops would remain on the roll of respondent no.2 and the respondent no.1

would make payments of their salaries through respondent no.2 at the present pay scale being

drawn by each worker. It is further asserted that the petitioners are not entitled to any bonus in view

of the fact that there is no relationship of employee and employer between petitioners and

respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition.

4. By filing separate reply, the respondent no.2 also contested the claim of the petitioners

wherein it has been asserted that at present there are fourteen employees deployed with the

respondent no.1 by respondent no. 2 and the bonus bills for the year 2008-09 and 2009-10 had been

submitted to respondent no.1 but the respondent no.1 had not paid the bonus to the petitioners till

date.

5. No rejoinder was filed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were

struck on 17.7.2010.

1960

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 6 twu] 2017@16 T;s"B] 1939

1. Whether the action of the respondents in not paying the bonus to the petitioners

for the period w.e.f. 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2004 is justified as alleged?

...OPP.

2. Whether this petition is not maintainable?

...OPR.

3.

Relief.

6. Thereafter the case was listed for the evidence of the petitioner. It is pertinent to

mention here that vide order dated 13.1.2011, the respondent no.2 was proceeded against ex-parte.

7.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Dy. DA for respondent

and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.

8.

For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing issues for determination

my findings on the aforesaid issues are as under.

Issue no. 1 No.

Issue no. 2 No.

Relief. Reference answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents

per operative part of award.

Reasons for findings

Issues no.1.

9. The petitioners as well as respondent no.1 have led their evidence in support of the

aforesaid issues.

10. Shri Deep Ram, petitioner no.1 has appeared into the witness box as PW-1 and

tendered his affidavit in examination-in-chief wherein he reiterated almost all the averments as

stated in the claim petition. He also tendered in evidence documents Ex. PW-1/A to Ex. PW-1/M.

In crossexamination, denied that the bonus is not to be paid by the respondent. He also denied that

the bonus is to be paid by the liquidator only.

11. On the other hand, the respondent no.1 has examined one Shri K. D Sharma, General

Manager as RW-1, who tendered his affidavit Ex. RW-1/A in examination-in-chief. In

crossexamination, he denied that the petitioners had not been paid the bonus w.e.f. 1994 to 2001.

He admitted that in his affidavit he had written that bonus w.e.f. 1994 to 2001 had been paid to the

petitioners and thereafter no bonus had been paid to them. He admitted that the salary was being

paid to the petitioner by respondent no.1 through liquidator. He also admitted that the petitioners

had written various letters for the release of bonus to department but no bonus had been given to

them.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioners were deputed with

respondent no.1 by the respondent no.2 vide letter dated 18.6.1994 on certain conditions stipulated

therein and the business was also transferred to respondent no.1, hence, the respondents are bound

to pay the bonus w.e.f. 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2009. The non-payment of bonus to the petitioners for the

aforesaid period is against the statutory provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.

13. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 contended that there is

no relationship of employee and employer between the petitioners and respondent no.1, hence, the

petitioners are not entitled to any bonus from respondent no.1.