jkti=] fgekpy izns'k

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

lkseokj] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

fgekpy izns'k ljdkj

LAW DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-2, the 3rd July, 2018

No. LLR-E(9)-1/2018.—In continuation of this Department’s Notifications of even number

dated 7th March, 2018 and 17th March, 2018, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to order

to appoint Sh. Akshay Amritanshu, Advocate, (D/1004/2014) C41, Jangpura Extension, New

Delhi-110014 (Phone:+91 99312-82222), as panel Advocate to represent the State of Himachal

Pradesh before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil/Criminal cases with immediate effect.

80&jkti=@2018&16&07&2018

¼3081½

3082

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

2. This engagement is purely at the pleasure of the State Government and can be

withdrawn at any stage without assigning any reasons thereof.

3. The other terms and conditions as contained in the Notification of this Department No.

LLR-E(9)1/88-III (Loose) dated 28th May, 2012 and 31st July, 2012 would continue to apply to the

said panel Advocate.

4. All the Departments are requested that whenever they need the services of any

Advocate in the particular Civil/Criminal case or in cases of vital importance to the State, they may

engage above Advocate with the prior approval of the Law Department and in consultation with the

Advocate General, Himachal Pradesh.

By order

Sd/-

LR-cum-Pr. Secretary (Law).

_________

LAW DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-2, the 3rd July, 2018

No. LLR-E(9)-2/2018.—In supersession of the previous Notification(s) issued from time to

time with regard to empanelment of Advocates to defend the Revenue Cases in Kangra District, the

Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to make a new panel of the following Advocates to

represent the State of Himachal Pradesh in Board/Bank/Trust/Committee/Corporation and Revenue

Cases pending before the various Courts in District Kangra with immediate effect:—

Sl.

No.

Name & Address

of Advocate

S/Sh./Smt.

Name of Institution

Terms and Conditions

of fee for Revenue

Courts

Nurpur Court

Ajay Pathania

NHAI, KCC Bank, UHF Nauni

Rs. 1500/- (Rupees One

Thousand Five hundred)

per case + Rs.

200/- as miscellaneous

expenses including

typing expenses.

Arun Jarial

HRTC & SDM Court Nurpur

-do-

Sonu Pundra

H.P. Electricity Board Tehsildar/Naib

Tehsildar Court.

-do-

Aditya Sharma

Civil

Supplies

Corpn.

HPKV

Palampur.

-do-

Sachit Sharma

Forest Corporation

-do-

Udhaybir Singh

Education Board, M.C.Nurpur

-do-

Naresh Dhiman

H.P. Pollution CB

-do-

3083

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

Shekhar Gupta

Forest Corporation

-do-

Indora Court

Ashwani Mahant

HRTC, SDM Court Nurpur

-do-

Rohit Minhas

Tehsildar & Naib Tehsildar Court

-do-

Sanjeev Kumar

Pollution Control Board and Civil

Supplies Corpn.

-do-

Shyam Dadwal

SDM & Tehsil Court

-do-

Sourav Sharma

HPSEB & H.P. Education Board,

KCC Bank and Forest Corpn.

-do-

Prashant Katoch

Forest Corporation

-do-

Palampur Court

D.S. Parmar

CSKHPKV, KCC Bank & HRTC

-do-

Manoj Sharma

HRTC, KCC Bank & H.P. Road &

Infrastructure.

-do-

Arvind Vashist

H.P. Agro Ind. HPSEB, KCC Bank

-do-

Arvind Mehta

HPSEB, HPHIM Fed, KCC Bank

-do-

Adarsh Sood

Him Urja, H.P. State Education,

HPSEB.

-do-

Hitesh Nag

KCC

Bank,

Civil

Supplies

Corporation.

-do-

Mahesh Sharma

H.P. Emp. W/W Board, KCC Bank,

HPPCL.

-do-

Bhanu Udai Singh

KCC Bank, HPMC, RKS Palampur

-do-

Vikas Sapehiya

Kangra Mortgage Bank HPGIC

-do-

10.

Binder Kapoor

H.P. Wool Federation, Naib Tehsildar

Court Palampur.

-do-

11.

Gagan Katoch

Tehsildar Court Palampur Standing

Counsel.

-do-

12.

Kapil Chaudhary

OBC Commission Kangra

-do-

13.

Hema Bhat

H.P. SC ST Corpn.

-do-

14.

Bhawana Thakur

H.P. Women Child Welfare Board

-do-

15.

Vishal Sood

UHF Nauni, HPSEDC

-do-

16.

Kush Patiyal

H.P. Polluction Control Board

-do-

17.

Shabbir Katoch

MC Palampur

-do-

18.

Ripu Daman Singh

MC Palampur/ HPMC/ HP Polluction

Control Board.

-do-

19.

Sanjay

Amtril

Gopal.

SDM Palampur

-do-

3084

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

20.

Arvind Sood

SDM Dehra

-do-

21.

Manu Bharti

Bhawarna/Chamunda Temple

-do-

22.

Ravinder

Ranout,

Palampur.

HP Forest Corporation

-do-

23.

Sushil

Nag

Palampur.

Him Urja/Forest Corporation

-do-

24.

Milap Chand Rana

Nagar Parishad

-do-

25.

Sanjeev Paddiar

HRTC

-do-

Baijnath Court

Sanjay Goswami

HPSEB/KCC Bank

-do-

Santosh Sharma

MC Baijnath/SDM B/Nath

-do-

Vijay Kumar

HPPOL/HRTC

-do-

Lakesh Sharma

HPTCL

-do-

Rajesh Verma

Tehsil Office B/Nath

-do-

Rakesh Kumar

Tehsildar/Naib. Tehsildar Baijnath

-do-

Neeru Vij

HP Civil Supplies Corpn.

-do-

Vinod K. Sajwel

HP Forest Corporation

-do-

Vijay

Kumar

Makkar

HP Forest Corporation

-do-

Dehra Court

Abhishek Padha

HRTC, KCC Bank, NP Jawalamukhi

& SDM J/Mukhi.

-do-

Arvind Dhiman

KCC Bank & H.P. Civil Supplies

Corpn.

-do-

Nitin Thakur

SC, ST, Corpn., Him Fed/MC Dehra

-do-

Rajdeep Chauhan

SDM Dehra

-do-

Arvind

Kumar

Sharma.

SDM Dehra

-do-

Ajay Thakur

KCC Bank

-do-

Amit Rana

Jawalamukhi Temple Trust

-do-

Arvind Prabhakar

Pollution Control Board

-do-

Bhavnesh Prashar

H.P. State Edu. Board

-do-

10.

Atul Rajyal

SDM Jawalamukhi

-do-

11.

Rajnath Bhatia

HPSEBL

-do-

12.

Amit Rana

Dehra

-do-

Dharamshala Court

Anand Sharma

HPSEB/NHAI

-do-

Arvind Kumar

H.P. State Civil Supply/HPFC, KCC

Bank/NHAI

-do-

Varun Sharma

CSKAU Palampur/HPFC for HPAT

-do-

Sumesh Raj Dogra

HRTC/HPSSC

-do-

3085

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

Tarun Sharma

Division Commissioner

-do-

Madan Thakur

HPU/HPTU

-do-

Umesh Dhiman

KCC Bank

-do-

Aman Kapoor

HPMC

-do-

Manish Chaudhary

Him Urja

-do-

10.

Vinod Kumar

DC & Tehsil Office

-do-

11.

Surinder Kaundal

H.P. Road and other Infrastructure

-do-

12.

Munish Kumar

UHF Nauni

-do-

13.

Sarita Chaudhary

H.P. Women & Child Welfare

-do-

14.

Latika Thakur

Wool Federation

-do-

15.

Ishant Guleria

H.P. Road and other Infrastructure

-do-

16.

Bobby Maratha

HPU(Regional Centre)

-do-

17.

Tevich Sanghoi

Land Mortgage Bank

-do-

18.

Ajay Thakur

H.P. Milk Federation

-do-

19.

Sandeep Kumar

Tehsil Office Dharamshala

-do-

20.

Sanjeev Sundhu

Tehsil Offie Dharamshala

-do-

21.

Manohar Thakur

HP GIC

-do-

22.

Rahul Sharma

MC D/Shala, KCC Bank

-do-

23.

Sudarshna

KCC Bank

-do-

24.

Narayan Thakur

H.P. Edu. Board

-do-

25.

Vivek Vashisth

Him Fed

-do-

26.

KS Thakur

Him Fed

-do-

27.

Mohit Sharma

KCC Bank

-do-

28.

Rakesh Mehra

HPFC

-do-

29.

Vishav

Chakshu

Puri.

MC D/Shala

-do-

30.

Rohit Planchkarn

KCC Bank

-do-

31.

Rajeev Azad

OBC Commission

-do-

32.

Chander Bhanu

MC Dharamshala

-do-

33.

Vishal Avasthi

KCC Bank

-do-

34.

Manoj Rana

KCC Bank

-do-

35.

Shisher Attri

SDM Shahpur/Indora

-do-

36.

Sanjeev Kumar

H.P.

Public

Service

Commission

Shimla

-do-

37.

Vishal Sharma

SDM D/Shala

-do-

38.

Rajender

Chaudhary.

SDM Nagrota Bagwan

-do-

39.

Ravinder

Chaudhary

Chamunda Temple

-do-

40.

Jaswinder Kaur

State

Handicraft

and

Handloom

Corporation.

-do-

3086

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

41.

Himali Thapa

Khadi Board

-do-

42.

Rakesh

Mehra,

Dharamshala.

District Court(Revenue Court)

-do-

43.

Deepak Dogra

Session Court (Revenue cases)

-do-

44.

Ram Lal Narayan

District Court (Revenue cases), Forest

Corporation.

-do-

45.

Shirish Bassi

KCC Bank

-do-

Kangra Court

Vipin Kumar

HPSEBL

-do-

Anuj Gupta

HRTC

-do-

Suresh Dhiman

State Civil Supplies Corpn.

-do-

Vijay Gupta

Tehsildar/SDM Kangra

-do-

Tarun Sharma

H.P. Forest Corpn.

-do-

Suneet Kohli

NP Kangra/Temple Brajeshwari

-do-

Jawali Court

Prittam Singh Rana

KCC Bank/HRTC/HPSEB/HPFC

-do-

Kalpana Thakur

Distt. Court Jawali, HPU

-do-

Gurnam

Singh

Bharti

State Civil Supplies Corpn, OBC

Commission, Sub Tehsil Nagrota

Surian.

-do-

Surinder Guleria

H.P. Edu.Board

-do-

Tilak Repotra

NP Jawali, HRTC

-do-

Basant Lal Sood

H..P Edu. Board

-do-

Dharamshala HP Administrative Tribunal Bench

Anand Sharma

MC D/Shala

-do-

Arvind Kumar

H.P. State Civil Supply/HPFC, KCC

Bank.

-do-

Varun Sharma

CSKAU Palampur

-do-

Sumesh Raj Dogra

HRTC/HPSSC/HPPSC

-do-

Rohit Dutta

H.P. Electricity Board

-do-

Arvind Vashist

NP P/pur, B/Nath, Nagrota, HPSEB

-do-

Madan Thakur

HPU/HPTU

-do-

Umesh Dhiman

KCC Bank, NP Kangra/Jawalamukhi/

Dehra.

-do-

Aman Kapoor

H.P. MC

-do-

10.

Manish Chaudhary

Him Urja

-do-

11.

Surinder Kaundal

H.P. Road and other Infrastructure

-do-

12.

Munish Kumar

UHF Nauni

-do-

13.

Sarita Chaudhary

H.P. Women & Child Welfare

-do-

14.

Latika Thakur

Wool Federation

-do-

15.

Ishant Guleria

H.P. Road and other Infrastructure/all

RKS Kangra & P/pur

-do-

3087

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

16.

Bobby Maratha

HPU/Chamunda Temple Trust

-do-

17.

Taviech Sanghoi

Land Mortgage Bank

-do-

18.

Ajay Thakur

HP Milk Fed

-do-

19.

Manohar Thakur

HP GIC

-do-

20.

Rahul Sharma

NP Jawali/Nurpur & Him Fed,

KCC Bank.

-do-

21.

Sudarshna

KCC Bank

-do-

22.

Narayan Thakur

H.P. Edu. Board

-do-

23.

Vivek Vashisth

HPFC

-do-

This engagement is purely at the pleasure of the State Government and can be withdrawn at

any stage without assigning any reasons thereof.

The Deputy Commissioner is requested that whenever there is a need of service of any

Advocate in the Revenue cases pertaining to the State, he may engage Advocate from the aforesaid

panel. Further where more than one Advocate is empanelled for the same Revenue Court, the

Deputy Commissioner will distribute the cases in rotation.

The expression “Revenue Cases” shall include all matters/proceedings relating to

encroachment cases, correction cases or any other case where interest of the State Government is

required to be protected before the Court.

By order,

Sd/-

LR-cum-Pr. Secretary (Law).

__________

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-171002, the 10th July, 2018

No. PBW(B)F(7)3/2009-II.—In continuation of this department's notification of even

number dated 14th May, 2018, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to declare the 'Pallingi

to Nichar via Gramang' road in District Kinnaur having a length of 21.200 kms as Major District

Road no. 97 at Sl. No. 88. Accordingly the total length of Major District Roads in District Kinnaur

will be 21.200 km and in the State will be 4152.570 kms.

Sd/-

(MANISHA NANDA)

Addl. Chief Secretary (PW).

3088

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

D/Shala, the 02^nd November, 2017

No. Shram (A) 6-2/2014 (Awards).—In exercise of the powers vested under Section 17(1)

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

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

D/Shala on the website of the Department of Labour & Employment Government of Himachal

Pradesh:—

Sl.

No.

Ref. No.

Petitioner

Respondent

Date of

Award/Order

370/15

Sanjeet Kumar

D.F.O. Palampur

05-09-2017

173/14

Subhash Chand

Registrar CSK, HPKVV Palampur

08-09-2017

176/14

Sudershan Kumar

Registrar CSK, HPKVV Palampur

08-09-2017

178/14

Ramesh Chand

Registrar CSK, HPKVV Palampur

08-09-2017

198/14

Vinod Kumar

Registrar CSK, HPKVV Palampur

08-09-2017

218/14

Madan Lal

Registrar CSK, HPKVV Palampur

08-09-2017

190/14

Kuldeep Kumar

Registrar CSK, HPKVV Palampur

08-09-2017

207/14

Ashok Kumar

Registrar CSK, HPKVV Palampur

08-09-2017

210/14

Vipan Kumar

Registrar CSK, HPKVV Palampur

08-09-2017

10.

212/14

Punnu Ram

Registrar CSK, HPKVV Palampur

08-09-2017

11.

217/14

Ashok Kumar

Registrar CSK, HPKVV Palampur

08-09-2017

690/16

Rama Sharma

Chairman, State Social Welfare

Board

11-09-2017

13.

576/15

Dhani Ram

E.E. HPPWD/I&PH, Killar

18-09-2017

14.

573/15

Gian Chand

E.E. HPPWD/I&PH, Killar

18-09-2017

15.

532/15

Devi Singh

E.E. HPPWD/I&PH, Killar

18-09-2017

16.

531/15

Dharam Pal

E.E. HPPWD/I&PH, Killar

18-09-2017

17.

569/15

Gurdev

E.E. HPPWD/I&PH, Killar

18-09-2017

18.

562/15

Dhano

E.E. HPPWD/I&PH, Killar

18-09-2017

19.

575/15

Roop Dass

E.E. HPPWD/I&PH, Killar

18-09-2017

20.

524/15

Khem Ram

E.E. HPPWD/I&PH, Killar

18-09-2017

21.

20/16

Tul Dei

E.E. HPPWD/I&PH, Killar

18-09-2017

22.

508/15

Des Raj

E.E. HPPWD/I&PH, Killar

18-09-2017

23.

568/15

Kishan Dei

E.E. HPPWD/I&PH, Killar

18-09-2017

24.

451/15

Chandro

E.E. HPPWD/I&PH, Killar

18-09-2017

25.

529/15

Janam Singh

E.E. HPPWD/I&PH, Killar

18-09-2017

26.

578/15

Yuvraj

E.E. HPPWD/I&PH, Killar

18-09-2017

27.

574/15

Devi Singh

E.E. HPPWD/I&PH, Killar

18-09-2017

3089

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

28.

521/15

Sarita

E.E. HPPWD/I&PH, Killar

18-09-2017

29.

522/15

Suman Kumari

E.E. HPPWD/I&PH, Killar

18-09-2017

30.

581/15

Dhuri Devi

E.E. HPPWD/I&PH, Killar

18-09-2017

31.

526/15

Amar Dei

E.E. HPPWD/I&PH, Killar

18-09-2017

32.

558/15

Basant Singh

E.E. HPPWD/I&PH, Killar

18-09-2017

33.

109/17

Dinesh Singh

Registrar CSK, HPKVV Palampur

23-09-2017

34.

103/15

Kaman Singh

E.E. HPPWD, Killar

04-09-2017

35.

155/15

Bhag Chand

E.E. HPPWD, Killar

04-09-2017

36.

377/15

Abdul Sitar

Dy. Director Horticulture

20-09-2017

37.

378/15

Kirpa Ram

Dy. Director Horticulture

20-09-2017

By order,

R. D. DHIMAN, IAS

Pr. Secretary ( Lab. & Emp.).

______________

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

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

Ref. No. 370/ 2015

Shri Sanjeet Kumar s/o Shri Pritam Chand, r/o Village and P.O. Chachian, Tehsil

Palampur, Distt. Kangra, H.P.

. .Petitioner.

Versus

The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Palampur, Distt. Kangra, H.P. . .Respondent.

05-09-2017 Present: None for the petitioner.

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

Case called several times but none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite due

knowledge. It is 11.30 A.M. Be awaited and put up after lunch hours.

Sd/-

(K. K. SHARMA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal,

Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

______________

05-09-2017 Present: None for the petitioner.

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

3090

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

Case has been called again several times but none has appeared on behalf of petitioner. It

is 2.35 P.M. None appearance of petitioner or his ld. authorised representative today is

indicative of the fact that he is not interested to pursue present reference and accordingly reference

is disposed of for non-prosecution.

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

Let copy of the Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for information and

further necessary action /publication. The file, after completion be consigned to the records.

Announced:

05-09-2017

Sd/-

(K. K. SHARMA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

______________

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

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

Ref. No. 173/ 2014

Shri Subhash Chand s/o Sh. Hari Krishan, r/o V.P.O. Parour, Tehsil Palampur, District

Kangra, H.P.

. .Petitioner.

Versus

The Vice Chancellor/Registrar, Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi

Vishav Vidyalya (CSKHPKV), Palampur, District Kangra, H.P.

. .Respondent.

08-09-2017 Present: None for the petitioner.

Smt. Rajni Katoch, adv. csl. for the respondent

Case called several times but none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite due

knowledge. It is 11.33 A.M. Be awaited and put up after lunch hours.

(K. K. Sharma)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal,

Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

______________

08-09-2017 Present:None for the petitioner.

Smt. Rajni Katoch, Adv. Csl. for the respondent

Case has been called again several times but none has appeared on behalf of petitioner. It is

2.36 P.M. None appearance of petitioner or his ld. authorised representative today is indicative of

the fact that he is not interested to pursue present reference and accordingly reference is

disposed of for non-prosecution.

3091

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

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

Let copy of the Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for information and

further necessary action / publication. The file, after completion be consigned to the records.

Announced:

08-09-2017

Sd/-

(K. K. SHARMA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

_____________

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

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

Ref. No. 176/ 2014

Shri Sudershan Kumar, s/o Shri Partap Chand, r/o Village Toran, P.O. Tikkar, Tehsil

Palampur, District Kangra, H.P.

. .Petitioner.

Versus

The Vice Chancellor/Registrar, Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi

Vishav Vidyalya (CSKHPKV), Palampur, District Kangra, H.P.

. .Respondent.

08-09-2017 Present: None for the petitioner.

Smt. Rajni Katoch, adv. csl. for the respondent

Case called several times but none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite due

knowledge. It is 11.32 A.M. Be awaited and put up after lunch hours.

Sd/-

(K. K. SHARMA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal,

Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

______________

08-09-2017 Present: None for the petitioner.

Smt. Rajni Katoch, adv. csl. for the respondent

Case has been called again several times but none has appeared on behalf of petitioner. It is

2.37 P.M. None appearance of petitioner or his ld. Authorised Representative today is indicative of

the fact that he is not interested to pursue present reference and accordingly reference is

disposed of for non-prosecution.

3092

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

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

Let copy of the Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for information and

further necessary action / publication. The file, after completion be consigned to the records.

Announced:

08-09-2017

(K. K.SHARMA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

______________

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

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

Ref. No. 178/ 2014

Shri Ramesh Chand s/o Sh. Kirpa Ram, r/o Village Ram Nagar, P.O. Tathail, Tehsil

Palampur, District Kangra, H.P.

. .Petitioner.

Versus

The Vice Chancellor/Registrar, Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi

Vishav Vidyalya (CSKHPKV), Palampur, District Kangra, H.P.

. .Respondent.

08-09-2017 Present: None for the petitioner.

Smt. Rajni Katoch, Adv. Csl. for the respondent

Case called several times but none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite due

knowledge. It is 11.30 A.M. Be awaited and put up after lunch hours.

(K. K.SHARMA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

______________

08-09-2017 Present: None for the petitioner.

Smt. Rajni Katoch, Adv. Csl. for the respondent

Case has been called again several times but none has appeared on behalf of petitioner. It is

2.35 P.M. None appearance of petitioner or his ld. Authorised Representative today is indicative of

the fact that he is not interested to pursue present reference and accordingly reference is

disposed of for non-prosecution.

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

3093

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

Let copy of the Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for information and

further necessary action / publication. The file, after completion be consigned to the records.

Announced:

08-09-2017

Sd/-

(K. K. SHARMA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

________________

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

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

Ref. No. 198/ 2014

Shri Vinod Kumar s/o Shri Amar Singh, r/o Village & P.O. Arla, Tehsil Palampur, District

Kangra, H.P.

. .Petitioner.

Versus

The Vice Chancellor/Registrar, Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi

Vishav Vidyalya (CSKHPKV), Palampur, District Kangra, H.P.

. .Respondent.

08-09-2017 Present: None for the petitioner.

Smt. Rajni Katoch, Adv. Csl. for the respondent

Case called several times but none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite due

knowledge. It is 11.34 A.M. Be awaited and put up after lunch hours.

Sd/-

(K. K. SHARMA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

_____________

08-09-2017 Present: None for the petitioner.

Smt. Rajni Katoch, Adv. Csl. for the respondent

Case has been called again several times but none has appeared on behalf of petitioner. It is

2.37 P.M. None appearance of petitioner or his ld. authorised representative today is indicative of

the fact that he is not interested to pursue present reference and accordingly reference is

disposed of for non-prosecution.

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

3094

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

Let copy of the Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for information and

further necessary action / publication. The file, after completion be consigned to the records.

Announced:

08-09-2017

Sd/-

(K. K. SHARMA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

_____________

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

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

Ref : No. 218/ 2014

Shri Madan Lal s/o Shri Rajinder Kumar, r/o V.P.O. Ustehar, Tehsil Baijnath, District

Kangra, H.P.

. .Petitioner.

Versus

The Vice Chancellor/Registrar, Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi

Vishav Vidyalya (CSKHPKV), Palampur, District Kangra, H.P.

. .Respondent.

08-09-2017 Present: None for the petitioner.

Smt. Rajni Katoch, Adv. Csl. for the respondent

Case called several times but none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite due

knowledge. It is 11.35 A.M. Be awaited and put up after lunch hours.

Sd/-

(K. K. SHARMA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

_____________

08-09-2017 Present: None for the petitioner.

Smt. Rajni Katoch, Adv. Csl. for the respondent

Case has been called again several times but none has appeared on behalf of petitioner. It is

2.38 P.M. None appearance of petitioner or his ld. authorised representative today is indicative of

the fact that he is not interested to pursue present reference and accordingly reference is

disposed of for non-prosecution.

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

3095

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

Let copy of the Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for information and

further necessary action / publication. The file, after completion be consigned to the records.

Announced:

08-09-2017

Sd/-

(K. K. SHARMA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

_____________

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

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

Ref. No. 190/ 2014

Shri Kuldeep Kumar s/o Sh. Jodha Ram, r/o Village-Dargil, P.O. Deogran, Tehsil

Palampur, District Kangra, H.P.

. .Petitioner.

Versus

The Vice Chancellor/Registrar, Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi

Vishav Vidyalya (CSKHPKV) Palampur, District Kangra, H.P.

. .Respondent.

08-09-2017 Present: None for the petitioner.

Smt. Rajni Katoch, Adv. Csl. for the respondent

Case called several times but none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite due

knowledge. It is 11.36 A.M. Be awaited and put up after lunch hours.

Sd/-

(K. K. SHARMA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

_____________

08-09-2017 Present: None for the petitioner.

Smt. Rajni Katoch, Adv. Csl. for the respondent

Case has been called again several times but none has appeared on behalf of petitioner. It is

2.39 P.M. None appearance of petitioner or his ld. authorised representative today is indicative of

the fact that he is not interested to pursue present reference and accordingly reference is

disposed of for non-prosecution.

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

3096

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

Let copy of the Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for information and

further necessary action / publication. The file, after completion be consigned to the records.

Announced:

08-09-2017

Sd/-

(K. K. SHARMA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

_____________

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

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

Ref: No. 207/ 2014

Shri Ashok Kumar s/o Shri Tara Chand, r/o Village Bhatpura, P.O. Thandol, Tehsil

Palampur, District Kangra, H.P.

. .Petitioner.

Versus

The Vice Chancellor/Registrar, Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi

Vishav Vidyalya (CSKHPKV) Palampur, District Kangra, H.P.

. .Respondent.

08-09-2017 Present: None for the petitioner.

Smt. Rajni Katoch, Adv. Csl. for the respondent

Case called several times but none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite due

knowledge. It is 11.38 A.M. Be awaited and put up after lunch hours.

Sd/-

(K. K. SHARMA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

_____________

08-09-2017 Present: None for the petitioner.

Smt. Rajni Katoch, Adv. Csl. for the respondent

Case has been called again several times but none has appeared on behalf of petitioner. It is

2.41 P.M. None appearance of petitioner or his ld. authorised representative today is indicative of

the fact that he is not interested to pursue present reference and accordingly reference is

disposed of for non-prosecution.

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

3097

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

Let copy of the Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for information and

further necessary action / publication. The file, after completion be consigned to the records.

Announced:

08-09-2017

Sd/-

(K. K. SHARMA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

_____________

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

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

Ref: No. 210/ 2014

Shri Vipan Kumar s/o Shri Malaha Singh, r/o V.P.O. Massal Tehsil & District Kangra, H.P.

. .Petitioner.

Versus

The Vice Chancellor/Registrar, Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi

Vishav Vidyalya (CSKHPKV), Palampur District Kangra, H.P.

. .Respondent.

08-09-2017 Present: None for the petitioner.

Smt. Rajni Katoch, adv. csl. for the respondent

Case called several times but none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite due

knowledge. It is 11.40 A.M. Be awaited and put up after lunch hours.

Sd/-

(K. K. SHARMA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

_____________

08-09-2017 Present: None for the petitioner.

Smt. Rajni Katoch, Adv. Csl. for the respondent

Case has been called again several times but none has appeared on behalf of petitioner. It is

2.42 P.M. None appearance of petitioner or his ld. authorised representative today is indicative of

the fact that he is not interested to pursue present reference and accordingly reference is

disposed of for non-prosecution.

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

3098

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

Let copy of the Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for information and

further necessary action / publication. The file, after completion be consigned to the records.

Announced:

08-09-2017

Sd/-

(K. K. SHARMA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

_____________

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

Ref. No. 212/ 2014

Shri Punnu Ram s/o Shri Gatto Ram, r/o V.P.O. Jhikli Bheth, Tehsil Baijnath, District

Kangra, H.P.

. .Petitioner.

Versus

The Vice Chancellor/Registrar, Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi

Vishav Vidyalya (CSKHPKV) Palampur, District Kangra, H.P.

. .Respondent.

08-09-2017 Present: None for the petitioner.

Smt. Rajni Katoch, adv. csl. for the respondent

Case called several times but none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite due

knowledge. It is 11.42 A.M. Be awaited and put up after lunch hours.

Sd/-

(K. K. SHARMA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

_____________

08-09-2017 Present: None for the petitioner.

Smt. Rajni Katoch, adv. csl. for the respondent

Case has been called again several times but none has appeared on behalf of petitioner. It is

2.43 P.M. None appearance of petitioner or his ld. authorised representative today is indicative of

the fact that he is not interested to pursue present reference and accordingly reference is

disposed of for non-prosecution.

3099

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

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

Let copy of the Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for information and

further necessary action / publication. The file, after completion be consigned to the records.

Announced:

08-09-2017

Sd/-

(K. K. SHARMA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

_____________

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

Ref.: No. 217/ 2014

Shri Ashok Kumar s/o Sh. Sher Singh, r/o V.P.O. Dadh (Takka Khater), Tehsil

Palampur, District Kangra, H.P.

. .Petitioner.

Versus

The Vice Chancellor/Registrar, Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi

Vishav Vidyalya (CSKHPKV) Palampur, District Kangra, H.P.

. .Respondent.

08-09-2017 Present: None for the petitioner.

Smt. Rajni Katoch, adv. csl. for the respondent

Case called several times but none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite due

knowledge. It is 11.44 A.M. Be awaited and put up after lunch hours.

Sd/-

(K. K. SHARMA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

____________

08-09-2017 Present: None for the petitioner.

Smt. Rajni Katoch, adv. csl. for the respondent

Case has been called again several times but none has appeared on behalf of petitioner. It is

2.44 P.M. None appearance of petitioner or his ld. authorised representative today is indicative of

the fact that he is not interested to pursue present reference and accordingly reference is

disposed of for non-prosecution.

3100

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

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

Let copy of the Order/Award be sent to the appropriate Government for information and

further necessary action / publication. The file, after completion be consigned to the records.

Announced:

08-09-2017

Sd/-

(K. K. SHARMA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial

Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

_____________

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

COURT-CUM-INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA (HP)

Ref. No. : 690/2016

Date of Institution : 03-10-2016

Date of Decision : 11-9-2017

Smt. Rama Sharma d/o Smt. Subhadra Devi Sharma, r/o Ward No.3, Village and Post

Office Old Kangra, Tehsil and District Kangra, H.P.

. .Petitioner.

Versus

The Chairman, State Social Welfare Board, Thakur Vatika Khalini, Shimla-2

The Chairperson, Family and Child Welfare Project Society, Near Purani Chungi,

Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P.

. .Respondents.

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

ORDER/AWARD

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

adjudication:

“Whether the termination of the services of Smt. Rama Sharma d/o Smt. Subhadra Devi

Sharma, r/o Ward No.-3, Village and P.O. Old Kangra, Tehsil and District Kangra, H.P.

by the (1) The Chairman, State Social Welfare Board, Thakur Vatika Khalini, Shimla-2

(2) The Chairperson, Family and Child Welfare Project Society, Near Purani Chungi,

Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. during September, 2014 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 amount of compensation the above

aggrieved worker is entitled to from the above employers/Management?”

11.9.2017 Present: Miss Sarita Chaudhary, Adv. with petitioner Smt. Rama Sharma.

3101

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

Smt. Rajni Vyas, Chairperson/President, Family and Child Welfare Project

Society, Rait, Tehsil Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P. in person.

Smt. Shail Bharti and Smt. Latika Thakur, Adv. Csl. for the respondents.

Case taken up for conciliation as a result of which parties have amicably resolved

their dispute qua present reference no.690/2016.

Smt. Rajni Vyas, Chairperson/President, Family and Child Welfare Project Society,

Rait, Tehsil Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P. has testified on oath to have entered into compromise

with petitioner according to which petitioner would be appointed as teacher on monthly salary of

Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) per month within a month after sanction from

government. She has further stated that a sum of Rs. 22,000/- being arrears of salary from

February 2014 to August, 2014 is to be paid to the petitioner/claimant out of which first

installment of Rs. 11,000/- (Rupees eleven thousand only) has been paid to the

claimant/petitioner today vide cheque No.057303 and remaining amount of Rs.11,000/

(Rupees eleven thousand only) would be paid to her before 31^st October, 2017. Admitting

correctness of statement of respondent No.2 aforestated, petitioner/claimant has prayed for

disposal of claim petition. She has further acknowledged to have received a cheque of

Rs.11,000/- (Rupees eleven thousand only) i.e. first installment from respondent No. 2 today in

the Court. In view of the separate statement made by both the parties, this reference is

disposed as compromised. The parties shall however be bound by their statement recorded

today.

The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in

the official gazette.

File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room. Announced in the open

Court today this 11^th day of September, 2017.

Sd/-

(K. K. SHARMA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal,

Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

__________

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

CUM-INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA (HP)

Ref. No. : 576/2015

Date of Institution : 04-12-2015

Date of Decision : 18-9-2017

Shri Dhani Ram s/o Shri Ram Saran, r/o Village Kulal, P.O. Mindhal, Tehsil Pangi,

District Chamba, H.P.

. . Petitioner.

Versus

3102

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

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

H.P.

. .Respondent.

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

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

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

AWARD

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

adjudication:

“Whether the industrial dispute raised by the worker Shri Dhani Ram s/o Shri Ram

Saran, r/o Village Kulal, P.O. Mindhal, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. before the

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

vide demand notice dated 06-12-2011 regarding his alleged illegal termination of

service during September, 2004 suffers from delay and laches? If not, Whether

termination of services of Shri Dhani Ram s/o Shri Ram Saran, r/o Village Kulal,

P.O. Mindhal, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, Killar

Division, H.P.P.W.D. Killar (Pangi), District Chamba, H.P. during September, 2004,

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

justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and

compensation the above aggrieved workman is entitled to from the above employer?”

On receipt of reference from appropriate government, notices were issued to the

parties in pursuance to which claimant/petitioner has filed statement of claim.

Brief facts as enumerated in the present claim petition by the petitioner above

named revealed that he had been initially engaged as daily wage beldar on muster roll basis in the

year 1995 who continuously worked till October, 2004 with the respondent. Averments made in

the petition further revealed that petitioner had worked for 160 days in each calendar year as the

criteria prescribed for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil, District Chamba and became eligible for

continuous service envisaged under statutory provisions of Section 25-B of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity). Averments made in the

petition revealed that the services of petitioner had been interrupted by way of intermittent/

artificial breaks given by the respondent/department deliberately and as such breaks are required

to be counted as 'continuous services' for the purposes of calculation of 160 days for the applicability

of Section 25-B of the Act. The grievance of petitioner remains that respondent/department had

terminated/disengaged petitioner from daily wage service orally without issuing one month's

notice in writing indicating the reason for retrenchment besides no retrenchment compensation

was paid to petitioner when respondent had been illegally terminated. It is contended that

respondent had not followed the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act while disengaging the

services of petitioner. It is stated that petitioner is very poor and no source of income

besides after termination of the services of petitioner, he had approached the respondent time

and again but of no avail. The grievance of petitioner further remains that when the services of

petitioner have been terminated, respondent/department had reengaged number of new workman

from time to time and respondent had not followed the principle of 'Last come, First go'

envisaged under Section 25-G of the Act. It is further alleged that respondent/department had

continuously retained junior to petitioner who are still in service namely Sher Singh who appointed

in 1996, Suraj Ram in 1997, Jai Dass in 1998, Tek Chand in 1999, Chunku Ram in 2000, Prakash

3103

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

Chand in 2001, Budhi Ram in 2003 and Dhani Ram in 2004. The claimant/petitioner claimed

that he had spotless service record who never been charge-sheeted for any act of indiscipline

or negligence or his conduct and even at the time of verbal termination, no charge-sheet had been

served upon him and at the same time, no opportunity of hearing had been afforded to him. The

petitioner also alleges that he has remained unemployed ever since his illegal termination in the

year 2004 till the date of institution of present claim petition who had been nowhere gainfully

employed and was thus entitled for full back wages. Accordingly alleging respondent to have

committed violation of statutory provision of Section 25-F, Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, the petitioner prays

for setting aside oral order of termination/retrenchment by the respondent in the year 2004. He

further prayed for reinstatement in service in the year 2004 along-with back wages, seniority

including continuity in service as petitioner has remained unemployed since the date of his

illegal termination. The petitioner has also prayed that period of intermittent/fictional breaks

given time and again during entire service of petitioner between 1995 to 2004 be counted 160

days continuous service and regularization of the service of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2003 having

completed 10 years of service and as per the policy of HP Govt. in pursuance to law settled by

Hon'ble High Court of H.P. and to any other relief petitioner is entitled.

The respondent contested claim petition, filed reply inter-alia taken preliminary

objections of maintainability, claim petition being bad on account of delay and laches. On merits

denied that petitioner had worked for more than 160 days in each calendar year rather clarified by

stating that petitioner was engaged as daily waged Beldar in 1996 who remained engaged till

2004 but had worked intermittently as petitioner used to come and attend the work at his own

sweet will and convenience. Relying upon the mandays chart, it has been categorically pleaded by

the respondent that petitioner had not completed 160 days in each calendar year as required

for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil. Allegations of fictional breaks given by respondent to the

petitioner have been denied. In so far as engagement of persons junior to petitioner mentioned in

para No. 10 of the claim petition were appointed as per order of Labour Court and no other

juniors to the petitioner had been retained in service by the respondent. On the plea of

termination of service of petitioner, respondent specifically alleges that petitioner had left the job

at his own will therefore serving of notice or pay in lieu thereof was not required. Reiterating

its stand respondent has maintained that petitioner had left the work of his own sweet will and

the persons mentioned in para No.10 are stated to have engaged as per direction of the

Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal Dharamshala and respondent had not violated the principle

of 'Last come, First go'. It is also contended that if petitioner had been terminated in 2004 he

would have definitely raised industrial dispute immediately and that after seven years petitioner

is stated to be agitating the matter which is bad on account of delay and laches. It is also contended

that since the services of petitioner had not been terminated by the respondent, question of

issuance of notice or wages in lieu thereof did not arise and at the same time, there was no

necessity for charge-sheet or issuing any notice of petitioner after his termination. It is contended

that petitioner was agriculturist and gainfully employed and was thus not entitled for back

wages.

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

Further asserted that provisions of Limitation Act did not eclipse the claim of petitioner in totality

besides allegation of violation of principle of 'Last come First go' was specifically denied.

In order to prove his case, petitioner had examined himself as PW1

tendered/proved his affidavit Ex. PW1/A under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, copy of seniority list

Ex. PW1/B, copy of demand notice dated Ex. PW1/C, copy of order of Hon'ble High Court Ex.

PW1/D and closed evidence. On the other hand, repudiating the evidence led by the

petitioner, respondent examined RW1 Shri D. R. Chauhan, the then Executive Engineer,

3104

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

HPPWD Division Killar as RW1 tendered/proved mandays chart of petitioner Ex. RW1/B, copy

of mandays chart of workers Ex. RW1/C and closed the evidence.

I have heard the ld. counsel of petitioner and ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent,

gone through records of the case carefully relevant for disposed of this case.

From the contentions raised, following issues were framed on 20.4.2016 for

determination:

Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated

06.12.2011 qua his termination of service during September, 2004 by respondent

suffers from the vice of delay and laches as alleged? If so, its effect?

. .OPP.

Whether termination of the services of petitioner by the respondent during September,

2004 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged?

. . OPP.

If issue No. 2 is proved in affirmative, to what service benefits the petitioner is

entitled to?

. .OPP.

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

Relief.

For the reasons detailed here under, my findings on the above issues are as

follows:—

Issue No.1

: Discussed

Issue No.2

: Yes

Issue No.3

: Discussed

Issue No.4

: No

Relief

: Petition is partly allowed awarding compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-

per operative part of award.

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

ISSUES NO.1 TO 3

10. All these issues have been taken up together for discussion being interconnected

which can be disposed of simultaneously without repetition of evidence.

11. Relationship of petitioner having been engaged as daily waged Beldar by respondent

on muster roll basis is not in dispute. Admittedly, petitioner was engaged without any written

order or settlement of terms and conditions by the respondent. It is equally not in dispute that

no written order was passed while terminating service of the petitioner as claim of respondent

remains that it had not retrenched petitioner from service who had abandoned the job of his own

and used to work intermittently as per his own wish and convenience. However, there is

dispute with regard to period for which the petitioner has worked with respondent. It is evident

3105

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

from mandays chart Ex. RW1/B coupled with pleadings of respondent that petitioner had worked

from 1996 till 2004 whereas the claimant/petitioner alleges that he had worked from 1995 to

October, 2004. Since the claim of petitioner is not substantiated from any corresponding

documentary evidence on record, the only inference in such situation could be drawn is that

petitioner had been factually engaged in the year 1996 and not in 1995.

Admittedly, the reference of appropriate govt. does not relate to plea of fictional breaks

but only with regard to petitioner's termination from service. In the backdrop of foregoing admitted

facts on record, claim of petitioner requires to be adjudicated with a view to determine if

petitioner is entitled for relief of reinstatement and back wages along-with seniority and past

service benefits and compensation as claimed by him.

12. Stepping into witness box as PW1 has sworn in affidavit Ex. PW1/A reiterating and

reaffirming his pleadings as stipulated in claim petition. In his affidavit he has claimed to

have worked with the respondent/department for more than 160 days in Pangi Sub Division

Chamba District and remained engaged from 1995 to October, 2004. He has also stated on oath

that no notice under Section 25-F of the Act was given by the respondent before terminating his

service and at the same time no compensation in lieu thereof notice period was paid to him and

thus his termination was illegal and void entitling petitioner benefit of reinstatement of service

with full back wages and all the other consequential service benefits. The petitioner has further

alleged on oath that respondent/department after terminating his services in October, 2004 by

oral order had engaged several co-workers who were junior to petitioner were retained in

service. Not only this, the persons who were junior to petitioner are stated to have been

regularized in service and thus respondent had not followed the mandate of Sections 25-G and

25-H of the Act which was obligatory on its part. The case of petitioner also remains that he

had

served

respondent

with

due

diligence

and

had

spotless

service

record

respondent/department had never called any explanation or raised charge-sheet against him

but even while retrenching petitioner from service, no notice was given. The petitioner has

also explained reason for not approaching the authorities under Labour Act and thereafter before

this Tribunal, as there existed no road between Chamba town to Pangi Tehsil till 2011 and

petitioner had moved before the Labour Officer raising demand notice consequent upon which a

failure report was submitted and as the Labour Commissioner did not make reference for

industrial dispute raised by petitioner, the petitioner had moved before the Hon'ble High Court by

filing CWP where direction was passed for making reference to the Labour Court due to which

delay had occurred and same was satisfactorily explained.

13. In so far as plea of abandonment raised by respondent is concerned, the same merits

rejection in view of the fact that respondent had failed to produce any record by which it could be

established that whenever petitioner absented from his duty as also reflected in mandays chart

Ex. RW1/B any notice or letter was ever issued. On this point respondent as RW1 has

specifically admitted that whenever petitioner abandoned the job, no notice had been issued.

RW1 specifically admitted that no departmental inquiry was initiated against petitioner whenever

he absented from duty. No reason whatsoever has been assigned for such any action or

omission on the part of respondent in not initiating any departmental proceedings or making

correspondence calling upon the petitioner to join service. This prima facie belies the stand

taken by the respondent as abandonment has to be proved like any other fact in issue. The

petitioner, on the other hand, as PW1 in cross-examination has specifically denied that he used

to leave the job in between and attended the work intermittently rather he has claimed that intermit

breaks had been deliberately given to him by the respondent in the service record of petitioner

so that petitioner did not complete 160 days of work as required for Pangi Tehsil area and also for

applicability of Section 25-B of the Act. As such, in absence of any specific and reliable

evidence led by respondent, it would be unsafe to hold that respondent had established plea of

abandonment.

3106

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

14. A bare glance on the mandays chart Ex. RW1/B would reveal that petitioner had

worked for 58 days in the year 1996, 59 days in 1997, 186 days in 1998, 145 days in 1999, 89

days in 2000, 121.5 days in 2001, 89 days in 2002, 127 days in 2003 and 103 days in 2004 and thus

a total of his service in 1996 to 2004 in 09 years he had worked for 977.5 days in his entire

service period. Be it noticed that except the years 1996, 1997 and 1999 to 2004 petitioner had

worked for more than 160 days and as there is no reference from the Labour Commissioner,

Shimla on the point of artificial breaks, this court is to confine its findings only with regard to

alleged illegal termination. It is evident from mandays chart Ex. RW1/B that in the year 2004 the

petitioner had merely worked for 103 days and thus immediately in preceding 12 calendar months

from the month of termination of petitioner had not rendered service of 160 days so as to

meet requirement of law of having continuous service of one year and thus it was not at all

required from respondent to have issued a notice envisaged under Section 25-F of the Act. As

such, the respondent is held to have not violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

15. Ld. counsel for petitioner has contended with vehemence that large number of

workers who were junior to petitioner had been appointed and these workers have been retained

in service and regularized. The grievance of petitioner remains that principle of 'Last come First go'

was not followed as the juniors were retained and services of petitioner despite being senior was

terminated without any valid reason. Ex. RW1/C is the year-wise mandays of daily waged

workers who were junior to the petitioner and had joined in the year 1997 or thereafter. All of

these co-workers shown in Ex. RW1/C the year-wise mandays details of workers of Division

HPPWD Killar were certainly junior to petitioner who were given sufficient work existing in

those years more than 200 days in a year whereas the petitioner had been not given muster roll

for the whole month. Ex. RW1/C also established that all the co-workers shown in this

document have worked for more than 160 days in most of the years although they were junior to

petitioner. Evidently, there is no iota of evidence of respondent establishing that petitioner was

called upon to join for service at any time after 2004 even at the time when junior persons were

reengaged. That being so the respondent had certainly violated the provisions of Section 25-G of

the Act as the juniors workers mentioned in para No.10 of the affidavit were retained whereas

petitioner was senior from these co-workers having joined service in 1996 was terminated and

even thereafter respondent omitted to afford opportunity to petitioner for reemployment for work

which also violates the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act. Ld. counsel for petitioner has

placed reliance upon judgment of Central Bank of India vs. S. Satyam, 1996 (5) SCC 419

in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for the applicability of Section 25-G and 25-H of

the Act, there was no necessity of claimant/petitioner to have worked for 240 days as in

case of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

16. Ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent has made futile attempt to justify engagement

junior worker and their retention in service in pursuance to Awards passed by Labour Court.

On the other hand, ld. counsel for petitioner relied upon Ex. PW1/D the order dated 01.10.2015

of Hon'ble High Court of H.P. vide which the orders qua termination passed as against

respondent and several other were quashed. That being so the relief was granted in favour of the

petitioner who was directed to be reinstated with others. As such, even when petitioner is

proved to have not worked for more than 160 days in preceding 08 years which entitled him for

regularization of his service per government policy, yet respondent is not absolved from its

accountability for complying the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act and as such,

it is held that respondent had violated the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial

Disputes Act.

17. Ld. Counsel for petitioner has contended that after petitioner's termination in 2004,

he had remained unemployed and was not earning anything thereafter as such was entitled for

full back wages. Repudiating the arguments of ld. counsel of petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. for the

State has taken this court through cross-examination of the petitioner who has admitted that he

3107

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

had cultivable land with him and also worked a private labourer. Thus, plea of having remained

not gainfully employed gets belied admission of petitioner in cross-examination in which he

had maintained that he had been earning from agricultural land as well as he has been working as

daily wager privately. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court North

East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. M. Nagangouda (2007) 10 SCC 765 in

which Division Bench comprising of Justice A.R. Lakshmanan and Justice Altamas Kabir had

held that 'term gainfully employment would also include self employment wherefrom

income is generated. It was income either from employment in an establishment or from self

employment merely differentiates the sources from which income is generated, the end use

being the same’. Applying the ratio of judgment of 2007 (supra) to this case since the

petitioner was earning from his agricultural and manual pursuits, the same were sufficient to

maintain him and his family. It is thus held that petitioner was gainfully employed. Be it stated

here that Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase’s case has held that the Labour Court

was not justified in holding that merely because the respondent was receiving agriculture

income, he cannot be treated to be engaged in gainful employment. Since the petitioner had

income from agriculture pursuits for his livelihood it cannot be stated that petitioner was not

gainfully employed and thus would not be entitled full back wages. In view of the forgoing

discussion, it is held that the relationship of workman and employer existed between

petitioner and respondent and that petitioner was illegally retrenched without compliance of

Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Act although remained gainfully employed after his

retrenchment. Thus, applying the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court (2007 supra), it

may not be erroneous to hold that petitioner was gainfully employed and thus would be not

entitled for back wages for the period he was out of job on being terminated by the respondent.

18. Lastly, Ld. Dy. D.A. for State has contended with vehemence that there is

inordinate and explained delay which disentitles petitioner relief claimed for by him. On the

other hand, ld. counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court

titled Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014 Lab

IC 4266 (SC) and the relevant paras of the judgment are produced below for reference:

“12. Therefore, in our considered view, the observations made by this Court in the

Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board case (supra) upon which the learned

Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana has placed reliance cannot be

applied to the fact situation of the case on hand, for the reason that the Labour Court

has erroneously rejected the reference without judiciously considering all the relevant

factors of the case particularly the points of dispute referred to it and answered the

2nd issue regarding the reference being barred by limitation but not on the merits of the

case. The said decision has no application to the fact situation and also for the reason

the catena of decisions of this Court referred to supra, wherein this Court has

categorically held that the provisions of Limitation Act under Article 137 has no

application to make reference by the appropriate government to the Labour

Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of existing industrial dispute between workmen

and the employer.

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

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

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

is not adjudicated by it, it does not mean that the dispute ceases to exist. The

appropriate government in exercise of its statutory power under Section 10(1)(c) of the

Act can refer the industrial dispute, between the parties, at any time, to either the

jurisdictional Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal as interpreted by this Court in the Avon

Services case referred to supra. Therefore, the State Government has rightly exercised its

3108

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act and referred the points of dispute to the

Labour Court as the same are in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in

Avon Services & Sapan Kumar Pandit cases referred to supra.

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

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

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

“17. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that on account of delay in raising the

dispute by the appellants the High Court was justified in denying relief to the appellants.

We cannot agree...... In Ratan Chandra Sammanta and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

(supra)1993 AIR SCW 2214, it was held that a casual labourer retrenched by the

employer deprives himself of remedy available in law by delay itself, lapse of time results

in losing the remedy and the right as well. The delay would certainly be fatal if it has

resulted in material evidence relevant to adjudication being lost and rendered not

available. However, we do not think that the delay in the case at hand has been so culpable

as to disentitle the appellants for any relief.....” (Emphasis laid by the Court) In view of the

legal principles laid down by this Court in the above judgment, the reference of the

industrial dispute made in the case on hand by the State Government to the Labour Court

to adjudicate the existing industrial dispute between the parties was made within a

reasonable time, considering the circumstances in which the workman was placed,

firstly, as there was a criminal case pending against his and secondly, the respondent had

assured the workman that he would be reinstated after his acquittal from the criminal case.

Moreover, it is reasonable to adjudicate the industrial dispute in spite of the delay in

raising and referring the matter, since there is no mention of any loss or unavailability of

material evidence due to the delay. Thus, we do not consider the delay in raising the

industrial dispute and referring the same to the Labour Court for adjudication as gravely

erroneous and it does not debar the workman from claiming rightful relief from his

employer.

15. In the case of Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum-

Processing Service Society Limited & Anr.[5] this Court has opined that relief cannot be

denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay, stating that:—

“10. It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation

Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the act and that the relief under it

cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised

by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice

and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labour court can be

generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay in

shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the case can

appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the

date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/ termination or dismissal. The

Court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead

of full back wages.....” (Emphasis laid by the Court)

16. Hence, we are of the opinion, having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case

that there is no delay or latches on the part of the workman from the date of his acquittal in

the criminal case. Thereafter, upon failure of the respondent in adhering to the assurance

given to the workman that he would be reinstated after his acquittal from the criminal

case, the workman approached the conciliation officer and the State Government to make

3109

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

a reference to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute with regard to the order of

dismissal passed by the respondent. Keeping in mind the date of acquittal of the appellant

and the date on which he approached the conciliation officer by raising the dispute, since

the respondent had not adhered to its assurance, the State Government had rightly

referred the dispute for its adjudication. Therefore it cannot be said that there was a

delay on the part of the appellant in raising the dispute and getting it referred to the Labour

Court by the State Government.

17. Further, the Labour Court on an erroneous assumption of law framed the

additional issue regarding the limitation in raising the dispute and its reference by

the State Government to the Labour Court. Thus, the Labour Court has ignored the

legal principles laid down by this Court in the cases referred to supra. The award passed

by the Labour Court was accepted erroneously by both the learned single Judge and the

Division Bench of the High Court by dismissing the Civil Writ Petition & the Letters

Patent Appeal without examining the case in its proper perspective, keeping in view the

power of the State Government under Section 10(1)(c) and the object and intendment of

the Act. Not adjudicating the existing industrial dispute on merits between the parties

referred to it may lead to disruption of industrial peace and harmony, which is the

foremost important aspect in Industrial Jurisprudence as the same would affect the public

interest at large.

19. Ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has also contended with

vehemence that claim petition is barred by limitation on account of delay and laches. It has been

pointed that termination of petitioner in this case took place on 2004 and the industrial dispute

was raised after several years of retrenchment. Repudiating the argument by ld. counsel, ld.

AR for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment reported in 2007 LHLJ 903 Hon’ble

High Court of H.P. (Bhatag Ram’s case) in which it has been held that delay in raising dispute

may be considered by court at the time of granting final relief however in various other judgments

even longer delay has been condoned. In Divisional Manager, HPFC & another vs. Garibu

Ram, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 1160, delay of more than 10 years was condoned besides Hon'ble

High Court has held that principle of Limitation Act is not applicable to the industrial dispute.

Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajayab Singh vs. Sirhind Co-operative

Marketing-cum-Processing Society Limited and Another, (1999) 6 SCC 82 in which it has

been held that the principle of Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply to the proceeding under the

Industrial Disputes Act.

20. Relying upon the aforestated judgment, it has been contended that claim of

petitioner cannot be defeated on the point of delay and laches. Repudiating arguments

advanced by ld. counsel for petitioner, ld. Dy. D.A. has placed reliance upon the judgment of

Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing

Board, Sub-Division Kota and Mohan Lal [2013 (139) FLR 125], the relevant para of the

judgment are produced below for reference:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 25-F and 10-Limitation Act, 1963-Section 5-

Industrial dispute-Termination of service-Finding of Labaur Court that workman had

completed 240 days in calendar year and her termination was in violation of section

25-F of the I.D.Act-Workman worked from 1.11.1984 to 17.2.1986 in all 286 days

during employment. Her services terminated on 18.2.1986. Industrial dispute raised after

6 years of termination. Admitted delay of 6 years not kept in view by the Labour Court-

Judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court flawed and unsustainable. Reinstatement

of the workman not the appropriate relief. In lieu of reinstatement compensation of

Rs.one lac directed to be paid to the workman by the appellant-employer within six

weeks failing which interest @ 9% p.a. will be payable. [Paras 21 and 22]

3110

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

Limitation Act, 1963. Section 5-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 25-F-Termination

of service-Industrial dispute raised after six years-Limitation Act not applicable to

reference made under the I.D. Act-Delay in raising industrial disputes definitely an

important circumstances which the Labour Court must keep in view before granting

relief ”.

21. Repudiating the arguments by ld. Dy. D.A. for the State, ld. Counsel for

claimant/petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Tapash

Kumar Paul vs. BSNL & another reported in AIR 2015 SC 357 wherein Hon'ble Court held that

a Court may pass an order of reinstatement by awarding compensation but the same has to be

based on justifiable grounds. In this judgment, it was held that compensation can be granted in a

situation where the industry is closed or that employees has superannuated or going to retire

shortly and no period is left to his credit or where workman has been rendered in capacitated to

discharge duties cannot be reinstated and/or fourthly when he have lost confidence of the

management to discharge duties. It was observed that there may be appropriate cases on facts

which may justify substituting an order of reinstatement by award of compensation but that

has to be supported by some legal and justifiable reasons indicating why the reinstatement

should be followed to be substituted by award of compensation. Ld. counsel for the

petitioner with the aid of above-said judgment had argued that there are only four situations

when a worker may be awarded compensation instead of reinstatement but the judgment has

certainly not been correctly appreciated by ld. counsel as this judgment postulates probable four

situations which are illustrate in nature where compensation may be awarded instead of

reinstatement but that does not mean that except the four grounds, no other ground would be

appropriate for awarding compensation. In the case in hand before this court, it has come that

petitioner had abandoned the job who did not report for duty for several years and later gave

notice requesting for joining of duties but the conditions in para no.5 of judgment (2015 supra)

even if not met requirement, cannot be a ground to reinstate the petitioner and it is only

compensation which would be appropriate relief. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has relied

upon the judgment of Hon'be Apex Court titled as Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior

Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and Ors. reported in AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 121,

Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in 2014(3) Apex

Court Judgments 652. I have gone through these judgments and of view that they don't come to

rescue the petitioner on point of reinstatement instead of compensation. Ld. Dy. D.A. for State

on the other hand has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Vice Chancellor,

Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh v. Akhilesh Kumar Khare & another reported

in AIR 2015 SC 3473. It has been contended that engagement of claimant/petitioner in this

case was not through regular mode of recruitment and applying the ratio of this judgment AIR

2015 SC supra, claim of petitioner for reinstatement can be negated and thus compensation

would be sufficient for redressal of grievance of the claimant/petitioner. Similarly, in 2016 (1)

Him. L.R. 502 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Chaman Singh relied by

ld. AR for petitioner interpretation of Section 137 of Limitation Act was involved which

provides that Article 137 of Limitation Act did not apply to industrial disputes. In 2014 (3)

Apex Court Judgment 652 (SC) similar view was reiterated which clearly mandates that

claimant/petitioner cannot be denied relief sought for merely on the ground of delay and laches.

That being so, the law remains as it was that ground of delay and laches, claimant/petitioner

cannot be denied relief rather the court has to consider various aspects before moulding

relief and the case in hand it would not be erroneous to mention here that the

claimant/petitioner can be reasonably indemnified by ordering compensation and not by

reinstatement. In so far as judgment of AIR 2015 SC 1373 titled as Mackinon Machenize &

Company Ltd. vs. Mackinon Employees Union is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court has

held on closure of unit of company principle of 'Last come First go' was not followed

which violated Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act and retrenchment was held illegal

entitling petitioner for retrenchment compensation. Since the facts of case of Mackinon

3111

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

Machenize’s case are different from case in hand as in former closure of unit of company was

involved whereas in case in hand before this court, there is no closure of company rather it is the

department of HPPWD which had engaged petitioner without following of the procedure although

subject to funds and availability of work. As such, when there is no closure of any unit by

respondent which the petitioner was engaged, judgment of Mackinon Machenize cannot be made

applicable.

22. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and case law relied by them, it

can be safely concluded that delay in raising industrial dispute is certainly important

aspect/circumstance which court has to keep in mind while exercising discretion. In para Nos.

20 and 21 of the judgment as referred to in this case reported in 2013 (136) FLR 893 (SC)

titled as Assistant Engineer Rajasthan Development Corporation and another vs. Geetam

Singh provides that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court or Tribunal has to

keep in mind all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of

employment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and delay in

raising industrial dispute before grant of relief. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

judgment (2013 supra) before that workman had worked for 286 days and had raised

industrial dispute in 1992 whereas her services have been terminated in 1986 and she raised

industrial dispute after six years. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that though compensation

awarded by Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court was too low and liable to be enhanced by

the Division Bench but surely reinstatement of the workman in the facts and circumstances

is not the appropriate relief and thus Hon'ble Apex Court awarded a lump-sum of Rs.1 lakh

along-with interest @ 9% per annum if the respondent failed to make payment of compensation

within six weeks from the date of judgment. In the case in hand before this court factors

which have weighed are that the petitioner in all remained engaged for about 09 years and

actually worked for 977.5 days as per mandays chart on record and that the services of petitioner

were disengaged in 2004 who worked as non skilled worker and had raised industrial dispute

by issuance of demand notice after about seven years i.e. demand notice was given on

06.12.2011. Taking into consideration factors mentioned above in pursuance to judgments of Hon'ble

Apex Court referred to above, petitioner would not be entitled either for reinstatement or for back

wages but a lump-sum compensation would be appropriate relief in view of judgment 2013 (139)

FLR 25 (SC). The judgments relied upon by ld. counsel for petitioner on the matter of delay

and laches is more or less settled law that claim of the petitioner could not be solely declined

on the ground of delay and laches. Similarly, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in 2014 titled as

Raghubir Singh’s case also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner as in this judgment also

the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the mandate as given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in previous

judgment in the year 2013 i.e. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing

Board, Sub-Division Kota and Mohan Lal’s case. I have gone through these judgments which

are not attracted in this present case as this court not declining relief to the petitioner on the

ground of limitation rather on the basis of guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court laid down in

judgment of 2013. Ld. Dy. D.A. representing State/respondents has relied upon the judgment of

Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2016 SC 2984 titled as Prabhakar v. Joint Director

Sericulture Department and another. I have gone through the judgment which deals reference

under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act in which it has been held that Hon'ble High

Court can intervene in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when reference has been challenged

on the ground of inordinate unexplained delay. Since the reference made by the Government

in this case is not in challenge before this Court, the above said judgment would not be

attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreso in view of observation qua facts made

in judgment (2016) supra, claimant/petitioner was found to be an educated person who was

working as Clerk whereas in case before this Court, the petitioner is an illiterate unskilled

worker. For the above said reasons, plea of delay and laches would not eclipse claim of

petitioner.

3112

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

23. I n view of foregoing discussion, a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/-

(Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only) would be an appropriate relief to which the petitioner

is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above. It is further made clear that

amount of compensation shall be paid within four months from the date of receipt of Award

failing which the petitioner would be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from date of Award till

its realization. Issues No. 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

Issue No.4

24. On the plea of non-maintainability of the claim petition under Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, ld. Dy. D.A. representing respondent department has failed to allege in

reply in what manner petition is not maintainable. Thus, vague plea merits rejection outright.

Otherwise also, from pleadings and evidence on record, no inference of claim petition being not

maintainable could be raised against claimant/petitioner. This issue is decided in favour of

petitioner and against the respondent.

Relief :

25. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, the respondent is hereby directed to pay

the compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only) to the petitioner in

lieu of the reinstatement, back wages, seniority and past service benefits. Amount of

compensation so awarded will be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within four months from

the date of receipt of Award failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay the interest @ 9%

per annum on the said amount from the date of award till the date of its realization. In the

peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

26. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms.

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

the official gazette.

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

Court today this 18^th day of September, 2017.

Sd/-

(K. K. SHARMA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal,

Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

_______________

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

COURT-CUM-INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA (HP)

Ref. No. : 573/2015

Date of Institution : 04-12-2015

Date of Decision : 18-9-2017

Shri Gian Chand s/o Shri Labh Singh, r/o Village Shour, P.O. Purthi, Tehsil Pangi, District

Chamba, H.P.

. .Petitioner.

3113

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 16 tqykbZ] 2018@25 vk"kk<+] 1940

Versus

The Executive Engineer, Killar Division, I.&P.H., Killar (Pangi), District Chamba, H.P.

. .Respondent.

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

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

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

AWARD

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

adjudication:

“Whether the industrial dispute raised by the worker Shri Gian Chand s/o Shri Labh

Singh, r/o Village Shour, P.O. Purthi, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. before the

Executive Engineer, Killar Division, I.&P.H. Killar (Pangi) District Chamba, H.P. vide

demand notice dated 25-01-2012 regarding his alleged illegal termination of services

during September, 2001 suffers from delay and laches? If not, Whether termination of

services of Shri Gian Chand S/O Shri Labh Singh, r/o Village Shour, P.O. Purthi, Tehsil

Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, I.&P.H.

Killar (Pangi) District Chamba, H.P. during September, 2001, without complying the

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

of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above aggrieved

workman is entitled to from the above employer?”

On receipt of reference from appropriate government, notices were issued to the

parties in pursuance to which claimant/petitioner has filed statement of claim.

Brief facts as enumerated in the present claim petition by the petitioner above

named revealed that he had been initially engaged as daily wage Beldar on muster roll basis in

the year 1996 who continuously worked till October, 2005 with the respondent. Averments made

in the petition further revealed that petitioner had worked for 160 days in each calendar year as

the criteria prescribed for tribal area of Pangi Tehsil, District Chamba and became eligible for