jkti=] fgekpy izns'k

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

lkseokj] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

fgekpy izns'k ljdkj

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-2, the 8th November, 2018

No. PLG.FC (F)1-1/2018 (DPDC) Bilaspur.—In supersession of all previous notifications

of this department regarding constitution of District Planning, Development and 20 Point

Programme Review Committee of District Bilaspur, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to

223&jkti=@2019&04&02&2019

¼7971½

7972

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

constitute District Planning, Development and 20—Point Programme Review Committee for

District Bilaspur with immediate effect as under:—

1. Chairman.—Sh. Vipin Singh Parmar, Hon’ble Health & Family Welfare, Medical

Education, Ayur., Scie. & Tech. Minister.

2. Non-Official Members:—

Sl.

No.

Name & Address

1-

MkW0 y{eh nr “kekZ] xkao o Mkd?kj dksV] ?kqekjoha] fcykliqj

2-

Jh ;”koar flag] xkao nsgjk] Mk0 gVokM+] ?kqekjoha] fcykliqj

3-

Jh gal jkt “kekZ] xkao nhij] Mk0 gVokM+] ?kqekjoha] fcykliqj

4-

Jh nsojkt j.kkSr] xkao FkMksg] ?kqekjoha] fcykliqj

5-

Jh deZ pan tloky] xkao Vkao Hkijky] Mk0 HkjkM+h] ?kqekjoha] fcykliqj

6-

Jh nyhi Bkdqj] xkao o Mkd?kj ysgM+h ljsy] rg0 ?kqekjoha] fcykliqj

7-

Jh deZ pan “kkL=h] xkao lqluky] Mk0 cjksVk] rg0 ?kqekjoha] fcykliqj

8-

Jh eSgj flag] xkao o Mkd?kj Maxkj] rg0 ?kqekjoha] fcykliqj

9-

Jh vkasdkj pkSgku] xkao o Mk0 ya?kkVk] rglhy ?kqekjoha] ftyk fcykliqj

10-

Jh eSgj flag] xkao Nanksg] Mk0 n/kksy] rglhy ?kqekjoha] ftyk fcykliqj

11-

Jh lqjsUnz jkroka] xkao ikyljk] Mk0 dikgM+k] rg0 ?kqekjoha] fcykliqj

12-

Jh ds”ko “kekZ] xkao ikyljk] Mk0 dikgM+k] rg0 ?kqekjoha] fcykliqj

13-

dS0 thr jke] xkao lqukyh] Mk0 dkjyksVh] rg0 ?kqekjoha] ftyk fcykliqj

14-

Jh izse flag] xkao D;kj] Mk0 o rglhy ?kqekjoha] fcykliqj

15-

Jh deZ pan pansy] utnhd vkbZ0ih0,p0 dk;kZy; ?kqekjoha] ftyk fcykliqj

16-

Jh jktsUnz pansy] xkao jpsMk] Mk0 yqgkjoha] rg0 ?kqekjoha] fcykliqj

17-

Jh deZ flag] xkao cnksrk] Mk0 yqgkjoha] rg0 ?kqekjoha] fcykliqj

18-

Jh uan yky] xkao vIij xyklha] Mk0 Mkoyk] rg0 ?kqekjoha] fcykliqj

19-

Jh tlfcnaj falag] xkao ?kqekuh] Mk0 HkxsM+] rg0 ?kqekjoha] fcykliqj

20-

Jh eku flag] xkao iuksy] Mk0 vejiqj] rglhy ?kqekjoha] fcykliqj

21-

Jh nquh pan “kekZ] xkao o Mk0 HkjkM+h] rg0 ?kqekjoha] fcykliqj

22-

Jh fxj/kkjh yky] xkao o Mk0 /kksadksFkh] rglhy lnj] fcykliqj] 70181&17399

23-

Jh txnh”k] iz/kku xzke iapk;r dksg e>aokj] rg0 ?kqekjoha] fcykliqj] 98171&97430

24-

Jh larks’k tks”kh] jkSM+k lSDVj uacj 2] fcykliqj] ftyk fcykliqj

25-

Jherh lq”kek Bkdqj] iwoZ iz/kku] xzke iapk;r irsM] ftyk fcykliqj] 70189&01055

26-

Jh vk”kh”k f<Yyksa] iwoZ iz/kku uxj ifj’kn~ fcykliqj] ftyk fcykliqj] 98162&00007

27-

Jherh jhrk nsoh] iwoZ ftyk ifj’kn~ lnL;] danjkSj] ftyk fcykliqj]

28-

Jherh mfeZyk dkS”ky] iapk;r lfefr lnL;] eSgjh dkFkyk] ftyk fcykliqj] 94188&08781

29-

Jh fo”oukFk] iwoZ iapk;r lfefr lnL;] tcyh] ftyk fcykliqj

30-

Jh :Ik yky Bkdqj] iwoZ iz/kku flgjk] xkao o Mk0 flgjk] ftyk fcykliqj

31-

Jh ckcq jke] mi&iz/kku fupyh HkVsM+] ftyk fcykliqj

32-

Jh jksfgr Bkdqj] gjuksjk] ftyk fcykliqj

33-

dS0 ftanw jke] iwoZ iz/kku danjkSj] xkao o Mk0 danjkSj] ftyk fcykliqj

34-

Jh iou dqekj] iwoZ iapk;r lfefr lnL;] Ukkauoka] ftyk fcykliqj

35-

Jh lqfjanj Hkkjrh] xkao fla;qu] Mk0 fla;q.k lqjM] rglhy JhuSuk nsoh th] ftyk fcykliqj

36-

Jh d`’.k pansy] xkao ftvksj] Mk0 txkr[kkuk] ftyk fcykliqj

37-

Jh fczt yky Bkdqj] xkao cyokj] Mk0 czãiq[kj] ftyk fcykliqj

38-

Jh “ksj flag Bkdqj] xkao ekek:] Mk0 uEgksy] ftyk fcykliqj

7973

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

39-

Jh jkds”k egktu] xkao teyh] Mk0 NM+ksy] ftyk fcykliqj

40-

Jh cychj flag iIih] xkao fa>afj;ka] Mk0 Vksck] ftyk fcykliqj

41-

Jh jks”ku yky “kekZ] xkao lkbZa czkãuk] Mk0 [kkjlh] ftyk fcykliqj

42-

Jh txr jke Bkdqj] xkao /kcsV~Vk] Mk0 Lokj?kkV] ftyk fcykliqj

43-

Jh xksj[k flag] xkao o Mk0 dYykj] ftyk fcykliqj

44-

Jherh eqds”k “kekZ] xkao XokaMy] Mk0 JhuSuk nsoh th] ftyk fcykliqj

45-

Jh jkds”k xkSre] ftyk v/;{k chtsih] xkao [kjksVk] Mk0 cjBha] rglhy >.Mwrk] ftyk

fcykliqjA

46-

Jh lqHkk’k eUgkl] e.My chtsih v/;{k] xkao csguk] Mk0 >.Mwrk] rglhy >.Mwrk] ftyk

fcykliqjA

47-

Jh v”kksd “kekZ] iz/kku xzke iapk;r nlysgMk] xkao o Mk0 nlysgM+k] rglhy >.Mwrk]

fcykliqjA

48-

Jh eukst y[kk] chMhlh mik/;{k] xkao o Mk0 cjBha] rglhy >.Mwrk] fcykliqj

49-

Jh jkds”k pansy] xkao o Mkd?kj ckjh fcykSj] rglhy >.Mwrk] ftyk fcykliqj

50-

Jh fot; pansy] ch,y,] xkao /kjkjluh] Mk0 _f’kds”k] rglhy >.Mwrk] ftyk fcykliqj

51-

Jh fd”kksjh yky] iz/kku xzke iapk;r taxyk] xkao taxyk] Mk0 xsgM+oha] rglhy >.Mwrk] ftyk

fcykliqjA

52-

Jh uan yky pkS/kjh] mi iz/kku leksg] xzke iapk;r leksg] Mk0 leksg] rglhy >.Mwrk] ftyk

fcykliqjA

53-

Jh jes”k /kheku] iz/kku] xzke iapk;r HkMksyha] Mk0 dyksy] rglhy >.Mwrk] ftyk fcykliqj

54-

Jherh “khyk pansy] chMhlh lnL;] eyxkao ckMZ] xkao dqBsM+k] Mk0 eyxkao] rglhy >.Mwrk]

ftyk fcykliqjA

55-

Jherh jhuk dqekjh] xkao cMZ] Mk0 lqukguh] rglhy >.Mwrk] ftyk fcykliqj

56-

Jh eksfgUnj flag] lsokfuo`r iz/kkukpk;Z] xkao csjh fea;k] Mk0 xsgM+oha] rglhy >.Mwrk] ftyk

fcykliqjA

57-

Jh jkds”k] iwoZ iz/kku MkgM+] xkao nQj] Mk0 MkgM+] rglhy >.Mwrk] ftyk fcykliqj

58-

Jh jkds”k Bkdqj iq= Jh lq[k jke] xkao ckyk] Mk0 MkgM+] rglhy >.Mwrk] ftyk fcykliqj

59-

Jh eku flag Bkdqj] lsokfuo`r vf/k”kk’kh vfHk;Urk] xkao csgjku] Mk0 >.Mwrk] rglhy >.Mwrk]

ftyk fcykliqjA

3.

Official Members:

(i) Deputy Commissioner

(ii) All District Level Head of Offices

(iii) Superintending Engineers, PWD/IPH/HPSEBL and Conservator of Forests of the

district.

4. Member Secretary.—Addl. DC/ADM (Chief Planning Officer)

5. Functions of the Committee.—The District Planning, Development and 20—Point

Programme Review Committee will function as the Policy and Planning Council at the district level

to give directions to the Administrative and Technical Personnel besides according approval,

overseeing the implementation in terms of monitoring and review in respect of developmental

schemes/Programmes and 20—Point Programme to be executed at district level. The Committee

will also have the final authority to approve the shelf of schemes/projects under various

decentralized planning programmes including Backward Area Sub Plan. The meeting of the

Committee will be held on quarterly basis as per date and venue fixed by the Chairman. The

7974

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

recommendations and suggestions of this committee will be sent to all the concerned Heads of

Departments for taking appropriate action with a copy to Planning Department, H.P.

6. Conditions Governing TA/DA.—The Officials Members shall be entitled for TA/DA

as admissible under the rules.

By order,

Sd/-

(ANIL KUMAR KHACHI, IAS),

Addl. Chief Secretary (Planning).

________

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla-2, the 27th December, 2018

No. PLG.FC(F)1-1/2018(DPDC) Solan.—In continuation of this department notification

of even number dated 11th June, 2018 the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to nominate

following as non-official members of the District Planning, Development and 20—Point

Programme Review Committee of district Solan with immediate effect :—

1. Sh. Nand Lal Pal, Village Kot, P. O. Dumehar, Teshil Arki, Distt. Solan, H.P., Mob.

No. 94181-33233.

2. Sh. Parmender Thakur, Pradhan G. P. Chammwal, Tehsil Arki, Distt. Solan, H. P.

By order,

Sd/-

(ANIL KUMAR KHACHI, IAS),

Addl. Chief Secretary (Planning).

_________

LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION

Shimla, the 10th October, 2018

No:Shram(A)6-6/2018 (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 :—

Sl.

No.

Reference/

Application

Title

Section

1.

Ref. 24/2018

Sh.

Mohinder

Singh

V/s

M/s

Patel

Engineering Ltd. Shongtong, Kinnaur.

10

7975

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

2.

Ref. 187/2017

Sh. Dalip Singh V/s M/s Patel Engineering

Ltd. Shongtong, Kinnaur.

10

3.

Ref. 188/2017

Sh. Vijay Kumar V/s M/s Patel Engineering

Ltd. Shongtong, Kinnaur.

10

4.

Ref. 72/2018

Sh.

Hardeep

Kumar

V/s

M/s

Patel

Engineering Ltd. Shongtong, Kinnaur.

10

5.

Ref. 71/2018

Sh.

Rajesh

Kumar

V/s

M/s

Patel

Engineering Ltd. Shongtong, Kinnaur.

10

6.

Ref. 56/2018

Sh.

Balwant

Singh

V/s

M/s

Patel

Engineering Ltd. Shongtong, Kinnaur.

10

7.

Ref. 12/2018

Sh.

Vinod

Kumar

V/s

M/s

Patel

Engineering Ltd. Shongtong, Kinnaur.

10

8.

Ref. 11/2018

Sh.

Suresh

Kumar

V/s

M/s

Patel

Engineering Ltd. Shongtong, Kinnaur.

10

9.

Ref. 13/2018

Sh. Amar Lal Verma V/s M/s Patel

Engineering Ltd. Shongtong, Kinnaur.

10

10.

Ref. 62/2018

Sh. Brikam V/s M/s Patel Engineering Ltd.

Shogtong, Kinnaur.

10

11.

Ref. 60/2018

Sh. Sant Ram Sharma V/s M/s Patel

Engineering Ltd. Shongtong, Kinnaur.

10

12.

Ref. 186/2017

Sh.

Vinod

Kumar

V/s

M/s

Patel

Engineering Ltd. Shongtong, Kinnaur.

10

13.

Ref. 37/2018

Sh.

Malkiyat

Singh

V/s

M/s

Patel

Engineering Ltd. Shongtong, Kinnaur.

10

14.

Ref. 38/2018

Sh. Arjun Singh V/s M/s Patel Engineering

Ltd. Shongtong, Kinnaur.

10

15.

Ref. 43/2018

Sh. Fanu Ram V/s M/s Patel Engineering

Ltd. Shongtong, Kinnaur.

10

16.

Ref. 41/2018

Sh. Mulak Raj V/s M/s Patel Engineering

Ltd. Shongtong, Kinnaur.

10

17.

Ref. 40/2018

Sh. Chuni Lal V/s M/s Patel Engineering

Ltd. Shongtong, Kinnaur.

10

18.

Ref. 149/2017

Sh.

Krishan

Kumar

V/s

M/s

Patel

Engineering Ltd. Shongtong, Kinnaur.

10

19.

Ref. 147/2017

Sh. Ram Lal V/s M/s Patel Engineering Ltd.

Shongtong, Kinnaur.

10

20.

Ref. 143/2017

Sh. Panna Lal V/s M/s Patel Engineering

Ltd. Shongtong, Kinnaur.

10

21.

Ref. 178/2017

Sh. Madan Lal V/s M/s Patel Engineering

Ltd. Shongtong, Kinnaur.

10

22.

Ref. 179/2017

Sh. Ravinder Kumar V/s M/s Patel

Engineering Ltd. Shongtong, Kinnaur.

10

7976

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

23.

Ref. 180/2017

Sh.

Rajender

Singh

V/s

M/s

Patel

Engineering Ltd. Shongtong, Kinnaur.

10

24.

Ref. 148/2017

Sh. Raj Kumar V/s M/s Patel Engineering

Ltd. Shongtong, Kinnaur.

10

25.

Re.f 107/2018

Sh. Mahavir V/s M/s Astral Poly Technik

Ltd Baddi, Solan.

10

26.

Ref. 75/2018

Sh. Arun Kumar V/s M/s Astral Poly

Technik Ltd. Baddi, Solan.

10

27.

Ref. 81/2018

Sh. Anil Kumar V/s M/s Astral Poly

Technik Ltd. Baddi, Solan.

10

28.

Ref. 79/2018

Sh. Sudesh Pathania V/s M/s Astral Poly

Technik Ltd. Baddi, Solan.

10

29.

Ref. 74/2018

Sh. Manoj Pathania V/s M/s Astral Poly

Technik Ltd. Baddi, Solan.

10

30.

Ref. 73/2018

Sh. Vijay Kumar V/s M/s Astral Poly

Technik Ltd. Baddi, Solan.

10

31.

Ref. 80/2018

Sh. Baldev Raj V/s M/s Astral Poly Technik

Ltd. Baddi, Solan.

10

32.

Ref. 97/2018

Sh. Govinda V/s M/s Astral Poly Technik

Ltd. Baddi, Solan.

10

33.

Ref. 95/2018

Sh. Pradeep Kumar V/s M/s Astral Poly

Technik Ltd. Baddi, Solan.

10

34.

Ref. 82/2018

Sh. Pawan Kumar V/s M/s Astral Poly

Technik Ltd. Baddi, Solan.

10

35.

Ref. 99/2018

Sh. Arun Lal V/s M/s Astral Poly Technik

Ltd. Baddi, Solan.

10

36.

Ref. 96/2018

Sh. Pal Singh V/s M/s Astral Poly Technik

Ltd. Baddi, Solan.

10

37.

Ref.108/2016

Sh. Joginder Singh V/s M/s Ashoka

Spanners Pvt. Ltd. Baddi, Solan.

10

38.

Ref. 111/2016

Sh. Raj Kumar V/s M/s Ashoka Spanners

Pvt. Ltd. Baddi, Solan.

10

39.

Ref. 131/2016

Smt. Chander Kanta Thakur V/s Shantialaya

Trust Keonthal, Shimla.

10

40.

App. 28/2012

Sh. Fazal Deen V/s The XEN, HPSEB Ltd.

Nahan.

10

41.

Ref.90/2017

Shobha

Ram

V/s

The

Director

of

Horticulture, Shimla.

10

42.

Ref. 91/2017

Smt. Maina Devi V/s The Director of

Horticulture, Shimla.

10

43.

Ref. 93/2018

Smt. Surjeet Kumari V/s M/s Captab

Biotech Baddi.

10

7977

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

44.

Ref. 73/2015

Sh. Prem Thakur V/s M/s Himachal

Futuristic Communication Ltd. Solan.

10

45.

Ref. 83/2015

Sh. Jai Singh V/s Administrator, Bal Bharti

Public School, Oach Ghat, solan & Anr.

10

By order,

NISHA SINGH,

Addl. Chief Secretary.

___________

2-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 10.56 A.M. Case called twice but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Be awaited.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

Case called again

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 12.56 P.M. Case called again but neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before

this Court. Be called after lunch.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

Case called after lunch

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 3.55 P.M. Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner

nor his Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Shri Niranjan

Verma, Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing

of claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

7978

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

“Whether termination of services of Shri Mohinder Singh s/o Late Shri Chhibar Ram,

r/o Village Baggi, P.O Dakhyora, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. by the

General Manager, M/s Patel Engineering Ltd. Shongthong Karchham Hydro Electric

Project, Reckong Peo, Tehsil Kalpa, Distt. Kinnaur, H.P. w.e.f. 30-3-2016, allegedly

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 ex-worker is entitled to from the above employer/

management?”

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has alleged his termination w.e.f.

30-3-2016 to be illegal and unjustified but despite having availed various opportunities, he has

failed to appear before this Court and to file statement of claim in support of his contention arising

out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that the services of the

petitioner have been terminated illegally w.e.f. 30-3-2016 without complying with the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, this Court is left with no other alternative but to answer the

reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered against the petitioner and the

award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the appropriate government

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

Announced:

2.8.2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

___________

6-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 10.35 A.M. Case called twice but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Be awaited.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

Case called again

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 12.35 P.M. Case called again but neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before

this Court. Be called after lunch.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla

7979

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

Case called after lunch

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 3.35 P.M. Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner

nor his Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Shri Niranjan

Verma, Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing

of claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether termination of services of Shri Dalip Singh Bisht s/o Shri Dhiraj Ram Bisht,

r/o Village Sundha, P.O & Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P. by the General

Manager, M/s Patel Engineering Ltd. Shogthong Karchham Hydro Electric Project,

Reckong Peo, Tehsil Kalpa, Distt. Kinnaur, H.P. w.e.f. 21-9-2016, allegedly 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 ex-worker is entitled to from the above employer/

management?”

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has alleged his termination w.e.f.

21-9-2016 to be illegal and unjustified but despite having availed various opportunities, he has

failed to appear before this Court and to file statement of claim in support of his contention arising

out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that the services of the

petitioner have been terminated illegally w.e.f. 21-9-2016 without complying with the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, this Court is left with no other alternative but to answer the

reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered against the petitioner and the

award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the appropriate government

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

Announced:

6.8.2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

____________

6-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 10.40 A.M. Case called twice but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Be awaited.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

7980

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

Case called again

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 12.40 P.M. Case called again but neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before

this Court. Be called after lunch.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

____________

Case called after lunch

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 3.40 P,M. Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner

nor his Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Shri Niranjan

Verma, Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing

of claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether termination of services of Shri Vijay Kumar s/o Shri Sohan Singh, r/o

V.P.O. Khawangi, Tehsil Kalpa, District Kinnaur, H.P. by the General Manager, M/s

Patel Engineering Ltd. Shongthong Karchham Hydro Electric Project, Reckong Peo,

Tehsil Kalpa, Distt. Kinnaur, H.P. w.e.f. 30-3-2016, allegedly 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 ex-

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

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has alleged his termination w.e.f.

30-3-2016 to be illegal and unjustified but despite having availed various opportunities, he has

failed to appear before this Court and to file statement of claim in support of his contention arising

out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that the services of the

petitioner have been terminated illegally w.e.f. 30-3-2016 without complying with the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, this Court is left with no other alternative but to answer the

reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered against the petitioner and the

award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the appropriate government

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

Announced:

6-8-2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

7981

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

6-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 10.50 A.M. Case called twice but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Be awaited.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

___________

Case called again

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 12.50 P.M. Case called again but neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before

this Court. Be called after lunch.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

____________

Case called after lunch

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 3.50 P.M. Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner

nor his Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Shri Niranjan

Verma, Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing

of claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether termination of services of Shri Hardeep Kumar s/o Shri Sewa Ram, r/o

Village Lakh Wali Basti, P.O. Patran, Tehsil Patran District Patiala (Punjab), w.e.f.

30-3-2016 by the General Manager, M/s Patel Engineering Ltd. Shongthong

Karchham Hydro Electric Project, Reckong Peo, Tehsil Kalpa, Distt. Kinnaur, 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 ex-worker is entitled to from the above employer/

management?”

7982

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has alleged his termination w.e.f.

30-3-2016 to be illegal and unjustified but despite having availed various opportunities, he has

failed to appear before this Court and to file statement of claim in support of his contention arising

out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that the services of the

petitioner have been terminated illegally w.e.f. 30-3-2016 without complying with the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, this Court is left with no other alternative but to answer the

reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered against the petitioner and the

award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the appropriate government

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

Announced:

6-8-2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

__________

6-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 10.55 A.M. Case called twice but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Be awaited.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

__________

Case called again

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 12.55 P.M. Case called again but neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before

this Court. Be called after lunch.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

___________

Case called after lunch

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

7983

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

It is 3.55 P.M. Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner

nor his Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Shri Niranjan

Verma, Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing

of claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether termination of services of Shri Rajesh Kumar Thakur s/o Shri Kartar Singh

r/o Village Bilpar, P.O. Darkata, Tehsil Dehra, Distrcit Kangra H.P. w.e.f. 30-3-2016

by the General Manager, M/s Patel Engineering Ltd. Shongthong Karchham Hydro

Electric Project, Reckong Peo, Tehsil Kalpa, Distt. Kinnaur, 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 ex-worker is entitled to from the above employer/management?”

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has alleged his termination w.e.f.

30-3-2016 to be illegal and unjustified but despite having availed various opportunities, he has

failed to appear before this Court and to file statement of claim in support of his contention arising

out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that the services of the

petitioner have been terminated illegally w.e.f. 30-3-2016 without complying with the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, this Court is left with no other alternative but to answer the

reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered against the petitioner and the

award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the appropriate government

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

Announced:

6.8.2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA),

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

____________

6-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 10.45 A.M. Case called twice but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Be awaited.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

7984

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

Case called again

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 12.45 P.M. Case called again but neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before

this Court. Be called after lunch.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

Case called after lunch

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 3.45 P.M. Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner

nor his Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Shri Niranjan

Verma, Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing

of claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether termination of services of Shri Balwant Singh s/o Shri Ami Chand r/o

Village Gharana, P.O. Gharana, Tehsil Khundian, District Kangra, H.P. w.e.f.

30-3-2016 by the General Manager, M/s Patel Engineering Ltd. Shongthong

Karchham Hydro Electric Project, Reckong Peo, Tehsil Kalpa, Distt. Kinnaur, 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 ex-worker is entitled to from the above employer/

management?”

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has alleged his termination w.e.f.

30-3-2016 to be illegal and unjustified but despite having availed various opportunities, he has

failed to appear before this Court and to file statement of claim in support of his contention arising

out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that the services of the

petitioner have been terminated illegally w.e.f. 30-3-2016 without complying with the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, this Court is left with no other alternative but to answer the

reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered against the petitioner and the

award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the appropriate government

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

Announced:

6-8-2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA),

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

7985

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

2-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 10.50 A.M. Case called twice but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Be awaited.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

Case called again

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 12.50 P.M. Case called again but neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before

this Court. Be called after lunch.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

Case called after lunch

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 3.50 PM. Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner

nor his Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Shri Niranjan

Verma, Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing

of claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether termination of services of Shri Vinod Kumar s/o Shri Padam Dass, r/o

Village Gasso, P.O. Jhakri, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla, H.P. by the General

Manager, M/s Patel Engineering Ltd. Shongthong Karchham Hydro Electric Project,

Reckong Peo, Tehsil Kalpa, Distt. Kinnaur, H.P. w.e.f. 30-3-2016, allegedly 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 ex-worker is entitled to from the above employer/

management?”

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has alleged his termination w.e.f.

30-3-2016 to be illegal and unjustified but despite having availed various opportunities, he has

failed to appear before this Court and to file statement of claim in support of his contention arising

7986

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that the services of the

petitioner have been terminated illegally w.e.f. 30-3-2016 without complying with the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, this Court is left with no other alternative but to answer the

reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered against the petitioner and the

award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the appropriate government

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

Announced:

2-8-2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

__________

2-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 10.48 A.M. Case called twice but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Be awaited.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

Case called again

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 12.48 P.M. Case called again but neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before

this Court. Be called after lunch.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

Case called after lunch

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 3.48 P.M. Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner

nor his Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Shri Niranjan

Verma, Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing

of claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

7987

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether termination of services of Shri Suresh Kumar s/o Shri Attar Singh, r/o

Village and P.O. Kalpa, Tehsil Kalpa, District Kinnaur, H.P. by the General Manager,

M/s Patel Engineering Ltd. Shongthong Karchham Hydro Electric Project, Reckong

Peo, Tehsil Kalpa, Distt. Kinnaur, H.P. w.e.f. 21-9-2016, allegedly 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 ex-worker is entitled to from the above employer/management?”

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has alleged his termination w.e.f.

21-9-2016 to be illegal and unjustified but despite having availed various opportunities, he has

failed to appear before this Court and to file statement of claim in support of his contention arising

out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that the services of the

petitioner have been terminated illegally w.e.f. 21-9-2016 without complying with the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, this Court is left with no other alternative but to answer the

reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered against the petitioner and the

award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the appropriate government

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

Announced:

2-8-2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA),

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

_________

2-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 10.53 A.M. Case called twice but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Be awaited.

Sd/

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

________

Case called again

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 12.53 P.M. Case called again but neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before

this Court. Be called after lunch.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

7988

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

Case called after lunch

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 3.53 P.M. Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner

nor his Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Shri Niranjan

Verma, Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing

of claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether termination of services of Shri Amar Lal Verma s/o Shri Nand Lal Verma,

Village Bhour, P.O. Kanaid, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. by the General

Manager, M/s Patel Engineering Ltd. Shogthong Karchham Hydro Electric Project,

Reckong Peo, Tehsil Kalpa, Distt. Kinnaur, H.P. w.e.f. 30-3-2016, allegedly 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 ex-worker is entitled to from the above employer/

management?”

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has alleged his termination w.e.f.

30-3-2016 to be illegal and unjustified but despite having availed various opportunities, he has

failed to appear before this Court and to file statement of claim in support of his contention arising

out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that the services of the

petitioner have been terminated illegally w.e.f. 30-3-2016 without complying with the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, this Court is left with no other alternative but to answer the

reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered against the petitioner and the

award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the appropriate government

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

Announced:

2-8-2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

_________

28-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 10.40 A.M. Case called twice but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Be awaited.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

7989

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

Case called again

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 12.35 P.M. Case called again but neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before

this Court. Be called after lunch.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

Case called after lunch

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 3.35 P.M. Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner

nor his Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Shri Niranjan

Verma, Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing

of claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether termination of the services of Shri Brikam s/o Shri Sewa Ram, r/o Village

Gundi, P.O. Tunan, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P. w.e.f. 30-3-2016 by the

General Manager, M/s Patel Engineering Ltd. Shongthong Karchham Hydro Electric

Project, Reckong Peo, Tehsil Kalpa, Distt. Kinnaur, 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 ex-

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

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has alleged his termination w.e.f.

30-3-2016 to be illegal and unjustified but despite having availed various opportunities, he has

failed to appear before this Court and to file statement of claim in support of his contention arising

out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that the services of the

petitioner have been terminated illegally w.e.f. 30-3-2016 without complying with the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, this Court is left with no other alternative but to answer the

reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered against the petitioner and the

award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the appropriate government

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

Announced:

28-8-2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

7990

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

28-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 10.35 A.M. Case called twice but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Be awaited.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

Case called again

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 12.30 P.M. Case called again but neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before

this Court. Be called after lunch.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

Case called after lunch

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 3.30 P.M. Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner

nor his Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Shri Niranjan

Verma, Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing

of claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether termination of the services of Shri Sant Ram Sharma s/o Late Shri jai

Krishan Sharma, r/o Village Panjoh, P.O. Kohlari, Tehsil Chamba, District Chamba

H.P. w.e.f. 30-3-2016 by the General Manager, M/s Patel Engineering Ltd. Shongthong

Karchham Hydro Electric Project, Reckong Peo, Tehsil Kalpa, Distt. Kinnaur, 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 ex-worker is entitled to from the above employer/

management?”

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has alleged his termination w.e.f.

30-3-2016 to be illegal and unjustified but despite having availed various opportunities, he has

failed to appear before this Court and to file statement of claim in support of his contention arising

out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that the services of the

petitioner have been terminated illegally w.e.f. 30-3-2016 without complying with the provisions of

7991

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, this Court is left with no other alternative but to answer the

reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered against the petitioner and the

award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the appropriate government

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

Announced:

28-8-2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

________

6-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 10.30 A.M. Case called twice but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Be awaited.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

___________

Case called again

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 12.30 PM. Case called again but neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before

this Court. Be called after lunch.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

Case called after lunch

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 3.30 P.M. Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner

nor his Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Shri Niranjan

Verma, Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing

of claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

7992

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

“Whether termination of services of Shri Vinod Kumar Singh s/o Shri Brahma Dutt

Singh, r/o Village & P.O. Semri Kala, Tehsil Tarab Ganj, District Gonda (UP) Pin-

271402 by the General Manager, M/s Patel Engineering Ltd. Shongthong Karchham

Hydro Electric Project, Reckong Peo, Tehsil Kalpa, Distt. Kinnaur, H.P. w.e.f.

30-3-2016, allegedly 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 ex-worker is entitled to from the above

employer/management?”

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has alleged his termination w.e.f.

30-3-2016 to be illegal and unjustified but despite having availed various opportunities, he has

failed to appear before this Court and to file statement of claim in support of his contention arising

out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that the services of the

petitioner have been terminated illegally w.e.f. 30-3-2016 without complying with the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, this Court is left with no other alternative but to answer the

reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered against the petitioner and the

award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the appropriate government

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

Announced:

6-8-2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

___________

3-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 10.56 A.M. Case called twice but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Be awaited.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

Case called again

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 12.56 P.M. Case called again but neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before

this Court. Be called after lunch.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

7993

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

Case called after lunch

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 3.55 P.M. Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner

nor his Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Shri Niranjan

Verma, Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing

of claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether dismissal/termination of services of Shri Malkiyat Singh s/o Shri Partap

Singh, r/o VPO Ropari, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. by the General

Manager, M/s Patel Engineering Ltd. Shongthong Karchham Hydro Electric Project,

Reckong Peo, Tehsil Kalpa, Distt. Kinnaur, H.P. w.e.f. 31-3-2016 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 ex-worker is entitled to from the above employer/management?”

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has alleged his termination w.e.f.

30-3-2016 to be illegal and unjustified but despite having availed various opportunities, he has

failed to appear before this Court and to file statement of claim in support of his contention arising

out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that the services of the

petitioner have been terminated illegally w.e.f. 30-3-2016 without complying with the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, this Court is left with no other alternative but to answer the

reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered against the petitioner and the

award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the appropriate government

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

Announced:

3-8-2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA),

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

__________

3-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 10.58 A.M. Case called twice but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Be awaited.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

7994

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

Case called again

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 12.58 P.M. Case called again but neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before

this Court. Be called after lunch.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

Case called after lunch

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 3.58 P.M. Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner

nor his Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Shri Niranjan

Verma, Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing

of claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether dismissal/termination of services of Shri Arjun Singh s/o Shri Basu Dev, r/o

Village Lalsa, P.O. Dansa, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla, H.P. by the General

Manager, M/s Patel Engineering Ltd. Shongthong Karchham Hydro Electric Project,

Reckong Peo, Tehsil Kalpa, Distt. Kinnaur, H.P. w.e.f. 21-9-2016 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 ex-worker is entitled to from the above employer/management?”

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has alleged his termination w.e.f.

21-9-2016 to be illegal and unjustified but despite having availed various opportunities, he has

failed to appear before this Court and to file statement of claim in support of his contention arising

out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that the services of the

petitioner have been terminated illegally w.e.f. 21-9-2016 without complying with the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, this Court is left with no other alternative but to answer the

reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered against the petitioner and the

award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the appropriate government

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

Announced:

3-8-2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

7995

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

3-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 11.04 A.M. Case called twice but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Be awaited.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

Case called again

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 12.50 P.M. Case called again but neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before

this Court. Be called after lunch.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

Case called after lunch

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 3.50 P.M. Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner

nor his Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Shri Niranjan

Verma, Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing

of claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether termination of services of Shri Fanu Ram s/o Shri Bralu Ram, r/o Village

Shah, P.O. Dofda, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla, H.P. w.e.f. 30-3-2016 by the

General Manager, M/s Patel Engineering Ltd. Shongthong Karchham Hydro Electric

Project, Reckong Peo, Tehsil Kalpa, Distt. Kinnaur, 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 ex-

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

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has alleged his termination w.e.f.

30-3-2016 to be illegal and unjustified but despite having availed various opportunities, he has

failed to appear before this Court and to file statement of claim in support of his contention arising

out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that the services of the

petitioner have been terminated illegally w.e.f. 30-3-2016 without complying with the provisions of

7996

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, this Court is left with no other alternative but to answer the

reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered against the petitioner and the

award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the appropriate government

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

Announced:

3.8.2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

__________

3-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 11.02 A.M. Case called twice but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Be awaited.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

Case called again

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 12.40 P.M. Case called again but neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before

this Court. Be called after lunch.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla

Case called after lunch

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 3.40 P.M. Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner

nor his Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Shri Niranjan

Verma, Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing

of claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

7997

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

“Whether termination of services of Shri Mulak Raj s/o Shri Mansa Ram, r/o Village

& P.O. Sarga, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P. w.e.f. 30-3-2016 by the General

Manager, M/s Patel Engineering Ltd. Shongthong Karchham Hydro Electric Project,

Reckong Peo, Tehsil Kalpa, Distt. Kinnaur, 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 ex-

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

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has alleged his termination w.e.f.

30-3-2016 to be illegal and unjustified but despite having availed various opportunities, he has

failed to appear before this Court and to file statement of claim in support of his contention arising

out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that the services of the

petitioner have been terminated illegally w.e.f. 30-3-2016 without complying with the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, this Court is left with no other alternative but to answer the

reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered against the petitioner and the

award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the appropriate government

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

Announced:

3-8-2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA),

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

__________

3-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 11.00 A.M. Case called twice but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Be awaited.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

Case called again

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 12.45 P.M. Case called again but neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before

this Court. Be called after lunch.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

7998

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

Case called after lunch

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 3.45 P.M. Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner

nor his Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Shri Niranjan

Verma, Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing

of claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether termination of services of Shri Chuni Lal s/o Shri Ses Ram, r/o Village

Randal, P.O. Rampur, Tehsil Nirmand, Dsitrict Kullu, H.P. w.e.f. 30-3-2016 by the

General Manager, M/s Patel Engineering Ltd. Shongthong Karchham Hydro Electric

Project, Reckong Peo, Tehsil Kalpa, Distt. Kinnaur, 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 ex-

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

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has alleged his termination w.e.f.

30-3-2016 to be illegal and unjustified but despite having availed various opportunities, he has

failed to appear before this Court and to file statement of claim in support of his contention arising

out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that the services of the

petitioner have been terminated illegally w.e.f. 30-3-2016 without complying with the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, this Court is left with no other alternative but to answer the

reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered against the petitioner and the

award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the appropriate government

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

Announced:

3.8.2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA),

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

__________

2-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 10.45 A.M. Case called twice but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Be awaited.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

7999

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

Case called again

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 12.45 P.M. Case called again but neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before

this Court. Be called after lunch.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

Case called after lunch

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 3.45 P.M. Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner

nor his Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Shri Niranjan

Verma, Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing

of claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether termination of services of Shri Krishan Kumar s/o Shri Gopal Chand, r/o

Village & P.O. Chansu, Tehsil Sangla, District Kinnaur, H.P. by the General

Manager, M/s Patel Engineering Ltd. Shongthong Karchham Hydro Electric Project,

Reckong Peo, Tehsil Kalpa, Distt. Kinnaur, H.P. w.e.f. 18-3-2016, allegedly 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 ex-worker is entitled to from the above employer/

management?”

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has alleged his termination w.e.f.

18-3-2016 to be illegal and unjustified but despite having availed various opportunities, he has

failed to appear before this Court and to file statement of claim in support of his contention arising

out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that the services of the

petitioner have been terminated illegally w.e.f. 18-3-2016 without complying with the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, this Court is left with no other alternative but to answer the

reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered against the petitioner and the

award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the appropriate government

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

Announced:

2-8-2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

8000

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

2-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 10.40 A.M. Case called twice but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Be awaited.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

Case called again

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 12.40 P.M. Case called again but neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before

this Court. Be called after lunch.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

Case called after lunch

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 3.40 P.M. Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner

nor his Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Shri Niranjan

Verma, Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing

of claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether termination of services of Shri Ram Lal s/o Shri Shanti Lal Negi, r/o Village

& P.O Chaura Tehsil Nichar District Kinnaur, H.P. by the General Manager, M/s

Patel Engineering Ltd. Shongthong Karchham Hydro Electric Project, Reckong Peo,

Tehsil Kalpa, Distt. Kinnaur, H.P. w.e.f. 26-3-2016, allegedly 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 ex-

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

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has alleged his termination w.e.f.

26-3-2016 to be illegal and unjustified but despite having availed various opportunities, he has

failed to appear before this Court and to file statement of claim in support of his contention arising

out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that the services of the

8001

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

petitioner have been terminated illegally w.e.f. 26-3-2016 without complying with the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, this Court is left with no other alternative but to answer the

reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered against the petitioner and the

award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the appropriate government

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

Announced:

2-8-2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA),

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

_________

2-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 10.37 A.M. Case called twice but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Be awaited.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

Case called again

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 12.37 P.M. Case called again but neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before

this Court. Be called after lunch.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

____________

Case called after lunch.

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 3.37 P.M. Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner

nor his Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Shri Niranjan

Verma, Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing

of claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

8002

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

“Whether termination of services of Shri Panna Lal s/o Shri Ram Dass, r/o Village

Kalangi, P.O. Degerh, Tehsil Ani, District Kullu, H.P. by the General Manager, M/s

Patel Engineering Ltd. Shongthong Karchham Hydro Electric Project, Reckong Peo,

Tehsil Kalpa, Distt. Kinnaur, H.P. w.e.f. 21-9-2016, allegedly 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 ex-

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

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has alleged his termination w.e.f.

21-9-2016 to be illegal and unjustified but despite having availed various opportunities, he has

failed to appear before this Court and to file statement of claim in support of his contention arising

out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that the services of the

petitioner have been terminated illegally w.e.f. 21-9-2016 without complying with the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, this Court is left with no other alternative but to answer the

reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered against the petitioner and the

award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the appropriate government

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

Announced:

2-8-2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

_________

2-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 10.35 A.M. Case called twice but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Be awaited.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

Case called again

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 12.35 P.M. Case called again but neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before

this Court. Be called after lunch.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

8003

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

Case called after lunch

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 3.35 P.M. Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner

nor his Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Shri Niranjan

Verma, Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing

of claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether termination of services of Shri Madan Lal s/o Shri Mangat Ram, r/o Village

& P.O. Bhoda, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. by the General Manager, M/s

Patel Engineering Ltd. Shongthong Karchham Hydro Electric Project, Reckong Peo,

Tehsil Kalpa, Distt. Kinnaur, H.P. w.e.f. 30-3-2016, allegedly 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 ex-

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

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has alleged his termination w.e.f.

30-3-2016 to be illegal and unjustified but despite having availed various opportunities, he has

failed to appear before this Court and to file statement of claim in support of his contention arising

out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that the services of the

petitioner have been terminated illegally w.e.f. 30-3-2016 without complying with the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, this Court is left with no other alternative but to answer the

reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered against the petitioner and the

award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the appropriate government

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

Announced:

2.8.2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA),

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

____________

2-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 10.32 A.M. Case called twice but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Be awaited.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

8004

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

Case called again

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 12.32 P.M. Case called again but neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before

this Court. Be called after lunch.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

Case called after lunch

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 3.32 P.M. Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner

nor his Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Shri Niranjan

Verma, Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing

of claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether termination of services of Shri Ravinder Kumar s/o Shri Govind Ram, r/o

Village, Post Office and Tehsil Sangla, District Kinnaur H.P. by the General Manager,

M/s Patel Engineering Ltd. Shongthong Karchham Hydro Electric Project, Reckong

Peo, Tehsil Kalpa, Distt. Kinnaur, H.P. w.e.f. 21-9-2016, allegedly 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 ex-worker is entitled to from the above employer/management?”

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has alleged his termination w.e.f.

21-9-2016 to be illegal and unjustified but despite having availed various opportunities, he has

failed to appear before this Court and to file statement of claim in support of his contention arising

out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that the services of the

petitioner have been terminated illegally w.e.f. 21-9-2016 without complying with the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, this Court is left with no other alternative but to answer the

reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered against the petitioner and the

award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the appropriate government

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

Announced:

2-8-2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

8005

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

2-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 10.30 A.M. Case called twice but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Be awaited.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

Case called again

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 12.30 P.M. Case called again but neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before

this Court. Be called after lunch.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

Case called after lunch

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 3.30 P.M. Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner

nor his Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Shri Niranjan

Verma, Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing

of claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether termination of services of Shri Rajender Singh s/o Shri Ram Rattan, r/o

Village Mangyari, P.O. Kanthli, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla H.P. by the General

Manager, M/s Patel Engineering Ltd. Shongthong Karchham Hydro Electric Project,

Reckong Peo, Tehsil Kalpa, Distt. Kinnaur, H.P. w.e.f. 30-3-2016, allegedly 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 ex-worker is entitled to from the above employer/

management?”

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has alleged his termination w.e.f.

30-3-2016 to be illegal and unjustified but despite having availed various opportunities, he has

failed to appear before this Court and to file statement of claim in support of his contention arising

out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that the services of the

petitioner have been terminated illegally w.e.f. 30-3-2016 without complying with the provisions of

8006

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, this Court is left with no other alternative but to answer the

reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered against the petitioner and the

award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the appropriate government

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

Announced:

2-8-2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

__________

2-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 10.43 A.M. Case called twice but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Be awaited.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

Case called again

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 12.43 P.M. Case called again but neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before

this Court. Be called after lunch.

Sd/-

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

Case called after lunch

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

It is 3.43 P.M. Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner

nor his Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Shri Niranjan

Verma, Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing

of claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

8007

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

“Whether termination of services of Shri Raj Kumar s/o Shri Jai Nand, r/o Village &

P.O. Sangla, Tehsil Sangla, District Kinnaur, H.P. by the General Manager, M/s Patel

Engineering Ltd. Shongthong Karchham Hydro Electric Project, Reckong Peo, Tehsil

Kalpa, Distt. Kinnaur, H.P. w.e.f. 30-3-2016, allegedly 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 ex

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

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has alleged his termination w.e.f.

30-3-2016 to be illegal and unjustified but despite having availed various opportunities, he has

failed to appear before this Court and to file statement of claim in support of his contention arising

out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that the services of the

petitioner have been terminated illegally w.e.f. 30-3-2016 without complying with the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, this Court is left with no other alternative but to answer the

reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered against the petitioner and the

award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the appropriate government

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

Announced:

2-8-2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

__________

24-8-2018

Present :

None for the petitioner.

Shri Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

As per track consignment report, the notice to the petitioner has been duly served. Case

called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner nor any Advocate

appeared on his behalf before this Court despite the fact that the petitioner has been duly served

which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not interested to pursue his case arising out of

the reference sent by the appropriate government to this Court for adjudication. Therefore, this

Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the reference on the basis of the material

whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference has been sent by the appropriate

government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether demand of Shri Mahavir s/o Shri Tufani, Village Balu Chapra, P.O.

Bharag, Tehsil Bharag, Distt. Devaria, U.P. for reinstatement of his services and

payment of salary from 14-4-2015 onwards, before the management of M/s Astral Poly

Technique Ltd., Village Bated, P.O. Barotiwala, Tehsil Baddi, Distt. Solan-173205,

H.P., after receiving full and final amount of Rs. 62,040/- from the above management,

is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the above aggrieved workman is entitled to

from the said management and if not, its effects?”

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has demanded for reinstatement

of his services and payment of salary from 14-4-2015 onwards before the respondent but despite

having been duly served, he has failed to appear before this Court and to file statement of claim in

support of his contention arising out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could

8008

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

go to show that the aforesaid demand of the petitioner is legal and justified. Furthermore, from the

reference itself, it is clear that the petitioner has demanded his reinstatement and payment of salary

after receiving full & final amount of ` 62,040/- from the respondent management meaning thereby

that he has already received full & final amount from the respondent as such at present he is not

interested to pursue his case. Hence, in the absence of any material on record, this Court is left with

no other alternative but to answer the reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is

answered against the petitioner and the award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award

be sent to the appropriate government for publication in the official gazette. File, after completion,

be consigned to records.

Announced:

24-8-2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla

Camp at Nalagarh.

___________

24-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner nor his

Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Ms. Deepa Kumari,

Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing of

claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether demand of Shri Arun Kumar s/o Shri Kehar Singh, Village Jalakh, P.O.

Doroh, Tehsil Palampur, Distt. Kangra, H.P. for reinstatement of his services and

payment of salary from 14-4-2015 onwards, before the management of M/s Astral Poly

Technik Ltd., Village Bated, P.O. Barotiwala, Tehsil Baddi, Distt. Solan-173205, H.P.,

after receiving full and final amount of Rs. 84,479/- from the above management, is

legal and justified? If yes, what relief the above aggrieved workman is entitled to from

the said management and if not, its effects?”

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has demanded for reinstatement

of his services and payment of salary from 14-4-2015 onwards before the respondent but despite

having availed various opportunities, he has failed to file statement of claim in support of his

contention arising out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that

the aforesaid demand of the petitioner is legal and justified. Furthermore, from the reference itself,

it is clear that the petitioner has demanded his reinstatement and payment of salary after receiving

full & final amount of ` 84,479/- from the respondent management meaning thereby that he has

already received full & final amount from the respondent as such at present he is not interested to

pursue his case. Hence, in the absence of any material on record, this Court is left with no other

alternative but to answer the reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered

against the petitioner and the award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to

8009

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

the appropriate government for publication in the official gazette. File, after completion, be

consigned to records.

Announced:

24-8-2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla

Camp at Nalagarh.

__________

24-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner nor his

Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Ms. Deepa Kumari,

Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing of

claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether demand of Shri Anil Kumar s/o Late Shri Pawan Kumar, Village & P.O.

Sindhian, Tehsil Una, Distt. Una, H.P. for reinstatement of his services and payment of

salary from 14-4-2015 onwards, before the management of M/s Astral Poly Technik

Ltd., Village Bated, P.O. Barotiwala, Tehsil Baddi, Distt. Solan-173205, H.P., after

receiving full and final amount of Rs. 93,811/- from the above management, is legal

and justified? If yes, what relief the above aggrieved workman is entitled to from the

said management and if not, its effects?”

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has demanded for reinstatement

of his services and payment of salary from 14-4-2015 onwards before the respondent but despite

having availed various opportunities, he has failed to file statement of claim in support of his

contention arising out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that

the aforesaid demand of the petitioner is legal and justified. Furthermore, from the reference itself,

it is clear that the petitioner has demanded his reinstatement and payment of salary after receiving

full & final amount of ` 93,811/- from the respondent management meaning thereby that he has

already received full & final amount from the respondent as such at present he is not interested to

pursue his case. Hence, in the absence of any material on record, this Court is left with no other

alternative but to answer the reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered

against the petitioner and the award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to

the appropriate government for publication in the official gazette. File, after completion, be

consigned to records.

Announced:

24-8-2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla

Camp at Nalagarh.

8010

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

24-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner nor his

Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Ms. Deepa Kumari,

Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing of

claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether demand of Shri Sudesh Pathania s/o Shri Ranveer Singh, Village Makrari,

P.O. Jalphed, Tehsil Jogindernagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. for reinstatement of his

services and payment of salary from 14-4-2015 onwards, before the management of

M/s Astral Poly Technik Ltd., Village Bated, P.O. Barotiwala, Tehsil Baddi, Distt.

Solan-173205, H.P., after receiving full and final amount of Rs. 94,388/- from the

above management, is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the above aggrieved

workman is entitled to from the said management and if not, its effects?”

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has demanded for reinstatement

of his services and payment of salary from 14-4-2015 onwards before the respondent but despite

having availed various opportunities, he has failed to file statement of claim in support of his

contention arising out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that

the aforesaid demand of the petitioner is legal and justified. Furthermore, from the reference itself,

it is clear that the petitioner has demanded his reinstatement and payment of salary after receiving

full & final amount of ` 94,388/- from the respondent management meaning thereby that he has

already received full & final amount from the respondent as such at present he is not interested to

pursue his case. Hence, in the absence of any material on record, this Court is left with no other

alternative but to answer the reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered

against the petitioner and the award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to

the appropriate government for publication in the official gazette. File, after completion, be

consigned to records.

Announced:

24-8-2018.

(SUSHIL KUKREJA),

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla

Camp at Nalagarh.

___________

24-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner nor his

Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Ms. Deepa Kumari,

8011

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing of

claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether demand of Shri Manoj Pathania s/o Shri Pardhan Singh, Village Makrari,

P.O. Jalpehad, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. for reinstatement of his

services and payment of salary from 14-4-2015 onwards, before the management of

M/s Astral Poly Technik Ltd., Village Bated, P.O. Barotiwala, Tehsil Baddi, Distt.

Solan-173205, H.P., after receiving full and final amount of Rs. 1,06,215/- from the

above management, is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the above aggrieved

workman is entitled to from the said management and if not, its effects?”

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has demanded for reinstatement

of his services and payment of salary from 14-4-2015 onwards before the respondent but despite

having availed various opportunities, he has failed to file statement of claim in support of his

contention arising out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that

the aforesaid demand of the petitioner is legal and justified. Furthermore, from the reference itself,

it is clear that the petitioner has demanded his reinstatement and payment of salary after receiving

full & final amount of ` 1,06,215/- from the respondent management meaning thereby that he has

already received full & final amount from the respondent as such at present he is not interested to

pursue his case. Hence, in the absence of any material on record, this Court is left with no other

alternative but to answer the reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered

against the petitioner and the award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to

the appropriate government for publication in the official gazette. File, after completion, be

consigned to records.

Announced:

24.8.2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA),

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla

Camp at Nalagarh.

___________

24-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner nor his

Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Ms. Deepa Kumari,

Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing of

claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

8012

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether demand of Shri Vijay Kumar s/o Shri Dharam Chand, Village Taggi, P.O.

Sunara, Tehsil & Distt. Chamba, H.P. for reinstatement of his services and payment of

salary from 14-4-2015 onwards, before the management of M/s Astral Poly Technik

Ltd., Village Bated, P.O. Barotiwala, Tehsil Baddi, Distt. Solan-173205, H.P., after

receiving full and final amount of Rs. 80,493/- from the above management, is legal

and justified? If yes, what relief the above aggrieved workman is entitled to from the

said management and if not, its effects?”

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has demanded for reinstatement

of his services and payment of salary from 14.4.2015 onwards before the respondent but despite

having availed various opportunities, he has failed to file statement of claim in support of his

contention arising out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that

the aforesaid demand of the petitioner is legal and justified. Furthermore, from the reference itself,

it is clear that the petitioner has demanded his reinstatement and payment of salary after receiving

full & final amount of ` 80,493/- from the respondent management meaning thereby that he has

already received full & final amount from the respondent as such at present he is not interested to

pursue his case. Hence, in the absence of any material on record, this Court is left with no other

alternative but to answer the reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered

against the petitioner and the award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to

the appropriate government for publication in the official gazette. File, after completion, be

consigned to records.

Announced:

24-8-2018.

Sd/-

(Sushil Kukreja)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla

Camp at Nalagarh.

___________

24-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner nor his

Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Ms. Deepa Kumari,

Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing of

claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether demand of Shri Baldev Raj s/o Shri Dalip Singh, Village Malher, P.O.

Marthun, Tehsil Palampur, Distt. Kangra, H.P. for reinstatement of his services and

payment of salary from 14-4-2015 onwards, before the management of M/s Astral Poly

8013

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

Technik Ltd., Village Bated, P.O. Barotiwala, Tehsil Baddi, Distt. Solan-173205, H.P.,

after receiving full and final amount of Rs. 93,872/- from the above management, is

legal and justified? If yes, what relief the above aggrieved workman is entitled to from

the said management and if not, its effects?”

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has demanded for reinstatement

of his services and payment of salary from 14-4-2015 onwards before the respondent but despite

having availed various opportunities, he has failed to file statement of claim in support of his

contention arising out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that

the aforesaid demand of the petitioner is legal and justified. Furthermore, from the reference itself,

it is clear that the petitioner has demanded his reinstatement and payment of salary after receiving

full & final amount of ` 93,872/- from the respondent management meaning thereby that he has

already received full & final amount from the respondent as such at present he is not interested to

pursue his case. Hence, in the absence of any material on record, this Court is left with no other

alternative but to answer the reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered

against the petitioner and the award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to

the appropriate government for publication in the official gazette. File, after completion, be

consigned to records.

Announced:

24-8-2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla

Camp at Nalagarh.

____________

24-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner nor his

Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Ms. Deepa Kumari,

Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing of

claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether demand of Shri Govinda s/o Shri Acchru Ram, Village Bhager, Tehsil &

Distt. Bilaspur, H.P. for reinstatement of his services and payment of salary from

14-4-2015 onwards, before the management of M/s Astral Poly Technik Ltd., Village

Bated, P.O. Barotiwala, Tehsil Baddi, Distt. Solan-173205, H.P., after receiving full

and final amount of Rs. 1,30,722/- from the above management, is legal and justified?

If yes, what relief the above aggrieved workman is entitled to from the said

management and if not, its effects?”

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has demanded for reinstatement

of his services and payment of salary from 14-4-2015 onwards before the respondent but despite

8014

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

having availed various opportunities, he has failed to file statement of claim in support of his

contention arising out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that

the aforesaid demand of the petitioner is legal and justified. Furthermore, from the reference itself,

it is clear that the petitioner has demanded his reinstatement and payment of salary after receiving

full & final amount of ` 1,30,722/- from the respondent management meaning thereby that he has

already received full & final amount from the respondent as such at present he is not interested to

pursue his case. Hence, in the absence of any material on record, this Court is left with no other

alternative but to answer the reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered

against the petitioner and the award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to

the appropriate government for publication in the official gazette. File, after completion, be

consigned to records.

Announced:

24-8-2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA),

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla

Camp at Nalagarh.

___________

24-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner nor his

Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Ms. Deepa Kumari,

Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing of

claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether demand of Shri Pradeep Kumar s/o Shri Puran Chand, r/o Village

Khaman, P.O. Kohbag, Tehsil & Distt. Shimla, H.P. for reinstatement of his services

and payment of salary from 14-4-2015 onwards, before the management of M/s Astral

Poly Technik Ltd., Village Bated, P.O. Barotiwala, Tehsil Baddi, Distt. Solan-173205,

H.P., after receiving full and final amount of Rs. 1,13,009/- from the above

management, is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the above aggrieved workman is

entitled to from the said management and if not, its effects?”

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has demanded for reinstatement

of his services and payment of salary from 14-4-2015 onwards before the respondent but despite

having availed various opportunities, he has failed to file statement of claim in support of his

contention arising out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that

the aforesaid demand of the petitioner is legal and justified. Furthermore, from the reference itself,

it is clear that the petitioner has demanded his reinstatement and payment of salary after receiving

full & final amount of ` 1,13,009/- from the respondent management meaning thereby that he has

already received full & final amount from the respondent as such at present he is not interested to

pursue his case. Hence, in the absence of any material on record, this Court is left with no other

8015

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

alternative but to answer the reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered

against the petitioner and the award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to

the appropriate government for publication in the official gazette. File, after completion, be

consigned to records.

Announced:

Sd/-

24-8-2018.

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla

Camp at Nalagarh.

_________

24-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner nor his

Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Ms. Deepa Kumari,

Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing of

claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether demand of Shri Pawan Kumar s/o Shri Bal Krishan, Village Tatri, P.O.

Sunara, Tehsil & Distt. Chamba, H.P. for reinstatement of his services and payment of

salary from 14-4-2015 onwards, before the management of M/s Astral Poly Technik

Ltd., Village Bated, P.O. Barotiwala, Tehsil Baddi, Distt. Solan-173205, H.P., after

receiving full and final amount of Rs. 1,01,221/- from the above management, is legal

and justified? If yes, what relief the above aggrieved workman is entitled to from the

said management and if not, its effects?”

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has demanded for reinstatement

of his services and payment of salary from 14-4-2015 onwards before the respondent but despite

having availed various opportunities, he has failed to file statement of claim in support of his

contention arising out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that

the aforesaid demand of the petitioner is legal and justified. Furthermore, from the reference itself,

it is clear that the petitioner has demanded his reinstatement and payment of salary after receiving

full & final amount of ` 1,01,221/- from the respondent management meaning thereby that he has

already received full & final amount from the respondent as such at present he is not interested to

pursue his case. Hence, in the absence of any material on record, this Court is left with no other

alternative but to answer the reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered

against the petitioner and the award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to

the appropriate government for publication in the official gazette. File, after completion, be

consigned to records.

Announced:

24-8-2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla.

Camp at Nalagarh.

8016

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

24-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner nor his

Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Ms. Deepa Kumari,

Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing of

claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether demand of Shri Arun Lal s/o Shri Madan Paul, V.P.O. Pukhri, Tehsil &

Distt. Chamba, H.P. for reinstatement of his services and payment of salary from

14-4-2015 onwards, before the management of M/s Astral Poly Technik Ltd., Village

Bated, P.O. Barotiwala, Tehsil Baddi, Distt. Solan-173205, H.P., after receiving full

and final amount of Rs. 1,03,982/- from the above management, is legal and justified?

If yes, what relief the above aggrieved workman is entitled to from the said

management and if not, its effects?”

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has demanded for reinstatement

of his services and payment of salary from 14-4-2015 onwards before the respondent but despite

having availed various opportunities, he has failed to file statement of claim in support of his

contention arising out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that

the aforesaid demand of the petitioner is legal and justified. Furthermore, from the reference itself,

it is clear that the petitioner has demanded his reinstatement and payment of salary after receiving

full & final amount of ` 1,03,982/- from the respondent management meaning thereby that he has

already received full & final amount from the respondent as such at present he is not interested to

pursue his case. Hence, in the absence of any material on record, this Court is left with no other

alternative but to answer the reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered

against the petitioner and the award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to

the appropriate government for publication in the official gazette. File, after completion, be

consigned to records.

Announced:

24-8-2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla,

Camp at Nalagarh.

_________

24-8-2018

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Shri Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither the petitioner nor his

Advocate appeared before this Court despite the fact that on the previous date Ms. Deepa Kumari,

8017

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

Advocate had appeared on behalf of petitioner. For today, the case has been listed for filing of

claim petition but despite having availed several opportunities in order to file the claim, none

appeared on behalf of the petitioner which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue his case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether demand of Shri Pal Singh s/o Shri Nand Lal, Village Dharmi, P.O. Pukhri,

Tehsil & Distt. Chamba, H.P. for reinstatement of his services and payment of salary

from 14-4-2015 onwards, before the management of M/s Astral Poly Technik Ltd.,

Village Bated, P.O. Barotiwala, Tehsil Baddi, Distt. Solan-173205, H.P., after receiving

full and final amount of Rs. 92,723/- from the above management, is legal and

justified? If yes, what relief the above aggrieved workman is entitled to from the said

management and if not, its effects?”

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has demanded for reinstatement

of his services and payment of salary from 14.4.2015 onwards before the respondent but despite

having availed various opportunities, he has failed to file statement of claim in support of his

contention arising out of reference. There is no material on record/file which could go to show that

the aforesaid demand of the petitioner is legal and justified. Furthermore, from the reference itself,

it is clear that the petitioner has demanded his reinstatement and payment of salary after receiving

full & final amount of ` 92,723/- from the respondent management meaning thereby that he has

already received full & final amount from the respondent as such at present he is not interested to

pursue his case. Hence, in the absence of any material on record, this Court is left with no other

alternative but to answer the reference against the petitioner and as such the reference is answered

against the petitioner and the award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this order/award be sent to

the appropriate government for publication in the official gazette. File, after completion, be

consigned to records.

Announced:

24-8-2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA),

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla

Camp at Nalagarh.

____________

IN THE COURT OF SUSHIL KUKREJA, PRESIDING JUDGE, H.P. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA

Ref. No. 108 of 2016

Instituted on 2-11-2016

Decided on 9-8-2018

Joginder Singh s/o Shri Prakash Ram, r/o Village and P.O. Bhud, Tehsil Nalagarh, District

Solan, H.P.

. .Petitioner.

Vs

8018

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

The Employer/Management M/s Ashoka Spanners Pvt. Ltd. Baddi, District, Solan, H.P.

. .Respondent.

Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

For petitioner :

Ms. Manisha Negi, Advocate vice Shri Vipin Bhatia, Advocate.

For respondent :

Shri Rajiv Sharma, Advocate.

AWARD

The following reference has been received from appropriate government by this court for

adjudication:

“Whether termination of service of Shri Joginder Singh s/o Shri Prakash Chand, r/o

V.P.O. Bhud, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan, H.P. w.e.f. 13-10-2015 by the

Employer/Management of M/s Ashoka Spanners Pvt. Limited, Tehsil Baddi, District

Solan, 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 in entitled to from the above employer/

management?”

2.

Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that he was working as zing operator from 1990

and after that he was promoted as forge shop supervisor from 2-9-1993 and was getting the

monthly salary of ` 13,000/- and he was doing all types of manual jobs for which he was asked to

do and thereafter w.e.f. 10-10-2015 the services of the petitioner were terminated illegally without

complying with the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred

as to Act) and other labour laws and was not allowed to enter the gate of the industry without any

justified cause. It is further stated that the petitioner had completed 240 days as per section 25-B of

the Act and neither retrenchment notice was issued to him nor any enquiry was conducted by the

respondent and even in lieu of notice no compensation and other benefits were paid to him. That

the petitioner had expressed his grief before many authorities and had lodged several complaints in

different departments against the conduct of the respondent but no effective result came out from

the efforts of the petitioner. That the petitioner is the only earning member in the family and the

service was the only source of his income. Against this back-drop it has been prayed that the

respondent be directed to compensate the petitioner alongwith back wages, seniority and past

service benefits.

3.

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

preliminary objection has been taken qua maintainability as the petitioner was working as

supervisor and the managers and supervisors do not fall under the definition of workers. On merits,

it has been asserted that the petitioner had resigned in the year 2003 and then again joined in the

year 2006 and worked for 23 days and thereafter again left the job and joined in November 2006

and worked for 10 days and again joined the respondent on 1-1-2007 and the present engagement

of the petitioner with the respondent is from 1-1-2007. That the provisions of the Act, are not

applicable in the present case as due to the resignation of the petitioner and acceptance of the same

as well as payment of full & final dues alongwith gratuity by the respondent. The respondent

prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition.

4.

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

respondents.

5.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 11-10-2017:—

8019

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

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

13-10-2015 without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is

illegal and unjustified?

. .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) Relief.

6.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and 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 learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the services of the petitioner have

been terminated illegally without complying with the provisions of the Act as before terminating

his services neither any notice was issued to the petitioner nor any enquiry was conducted against

him despite the fact that he had completed 240 days in each calendar year.

9.

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

petitioner had tendered his resignation voluntarily which was accepted by the respondent and even

the petitioner had accepted his full and final dues from the respondent company, hence, the

termination of his services does not arise at all.

10. To prove his case, the petitioner stepped into the witness box as PW-1 to depose that

he had been working as helper with the respondent w.e.f. the year 1990 and there were about more

than 200 workers working in the company at the time of his termination. He further deposed that no

appointment letter was issued to him at the time of his appointment and the respondent company

terminated his services without any reason and closed the gate. He also deposed that neither any

notice was issued to him nor any compensation was paid to him before his termination. He was

drawing salary @ ` 6000/- at the time of his appointment after deducting PF and ESI contribution

and he is unemployed after his illegal termination. He deposed that he had lodged a complaint

regarding his termination against the respondent company before the Prime Minister of India vide

Mark P-1 and vide Mark P-2 to P-3 he had made complaints to SHO Baddi and SDM Nalagarh. In

cross-examination, he admitted that letter dated 3-9-1993 Ex. RX has been signed by him at point

A encircled in red. He denied that he was working as supervisor. He further denied that on

8020

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

26-3-2003 he had received his full and final dues after resignation. He admitted that he had written

in his own hand in the register of leave with wages Ex. RX-1 that he had received his full & final

dues on 26-3-2003 from the respondent. He denied that on 1-1-2007 he again requested to the

promoter of the company for rejoining the company and on his request he was again engaged by

the company. He denied that he had resigned from his post on 12-10-2015 vide Mark R-3. He

further denied that he had signed the receipt dated 19.10.2015 Mark R-4. He also denied that he

signed vouchers Mark R-5 to Mark R-7. He further denied that he was working as a supervisor

from 3-9-1993 to 26-3-2003 and then from 1-1-2007 to 12-10-2015.

11. PW-2 Shri Shyam Sunder, Personal Manager (HR) with the respondent company

deposed that he has been working with the respondent since 8-8-1990 and the employees tendered

their resignation before the company Director. In cross-examination, he stated that the petitioner

had tendered his resignation Ex. RX-4 at his own will and he has taken his full & final dues vide

receipt Ex. RX-5 and he had also signed vouchers Ex. RX-6 to Ex. RX-8 and leave voucher register

Mark R-8. PW-3 Shri Sanjay Kumar, Store Keeper of respondent company deposed that the full

and final receipt Ex. RX-5 was prepared in his presence. He further deposed that on 17-2-2016, the

petitioner had taken him to the Police Station Baddi and the complaint Mark P-4 has been signed

by him at point A encircled in red. In cross examination, he admitted that he had signed Ex. RX-5

at point A encircled in red.

12. On the other hand, the respondent has examined one Shri Shyam Sunder as RW-1 who

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

made in the reply. He also tendered in evidence the authority letter Ex. RW-1/B. In cross-

examination, he denied that the petitioner was not doing the work of supervisor. He further denied

that only the designation of the petitioner was supervisor and he was doing manual work. He also

denied that the petitioner had never resigned from service and has not received his full & final dues.

He denied that the petitioner was working as an operator. It is correct that the petitioner had

completed 240 days in preceding twelve months. He further admitted that no notice and no enquiry

was conducted against the petitioner. He denied that the petitioner was illegally terminated.

13. I have closely scrutinized the entire record of the case and after the closure scrutiny

thereof it has become clear that the petitioner was earlier working with the respondent and resigned

in the year 2003 and had also taken his pending dues from the respondent. Thereafter, on his

request he was again given appointment in the year 2006 and he again left after 23 days. Thereafter,

on the request of the petitioner, he was again appointed by the respondent in the year 2007 and then

the petitioner himself resigned from the job on 12-10-2015 vide letter Ex. RX-4. The perusal of the

resignation letter Ex. RX-4 shows that the petitioner himself had tendered his resignation on 12-10-

2015 and also requested the respondent to accept his resignation and to pay him full & final dues.

His resignation was accepted on 12-10-2015 itself vide endorsement made on Ex. RX-4 and

thereafter he had received his dues by way of vouchers dated 19-10-2015 Ex. RX-6 to Ex. RX-8.

The petitioner has also executed a receipt regarding the full and final settlement of the dues from

the respondent on 19-10-2015 which is Ex. RX-5 in the presence of PW-3 Shri Sanjay Kumar who

stated that the full & final receipt Ex. RX-5 was prepared in his presence and he also admitted in

cross-examination that the receipt Ex. RX-5 bears his signatures at point A encircled in red.

Therefore, as the petitioner had tendered his resignation voluntarily and had also received his all

dues by way of full and final settlement from the respondent company, hence, the relationship of

employee and employer between the parties came to an end. In (1990) 4 SCC 27, J. K. Cotton

Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd. Vs. State of U.P and others, the effect of voluntary

resignation was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it was held that when an employee

voluntarily tender his resignation, it is an act by which he voluntarily gives up his job and therefore,

such a situation is covered by the expression “Voluntary retirement”. The relevant portion of the

aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:

8021

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

“8. In the present case the employee’s request contained in the letter of resignation

was accepted by the employer and that brought an end to the contract of service. The

meaning of term 'resign' as found in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary includes

'retirement'. Therefore, when an employee voluntarily tenders his resignation it is an

act by which he voluntarily gives up his job. We are, therefore, of the opinion that

such a situation would be covered by the expression 'voluntary retirement' within the

meaning of clause (i) of Section 2(s) of the State Act. In Santosh Gupta’s case

Chinnappa Reddy, J. observed as under:

"Voluntary retrenchment of a workman or the retrenchment of the workman on

reaching the age of superannuation can hardly be described as termination, by

the employer, of the service of a workman".

(Here the word 'retrenchment' has reference to 'retirement'.)

The above observation clearly supports the view which commends itself to us. We are,

therefore, of the opinion that the High Court was not right in concluding that because

the employer accepted the resignation offer voluntarily made by the employee, he

terminated the service of the employee and such termination, therefore, fell within the

expression 'retrenchment' rendering him liable to compensate the employee under

section 6-N. We are also of the view that this was a case of 'voluntary retirement'

within the meaning of the first exception of section 2(s) and therefore the question of

grant of compensation under section 6-N does not arise. We, therefore, cannot allow

the view of the High Court to stand”.

In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner that he had tendered his resignation

under duress, coercion or misrepresentation rather he had accepted his full & final dues vide

vouchers Ex. RX-6 to Ex. RX-8 dated 19-10-2015 and receipt Ex. RX-5. Therefore, if the petitioner

had tendered his resignation and accepted his full & final dues, then in the absence of any fraud,

coercion or duress being proved, the service of the petitioner comes to an end. In view of the

aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, such a situation would be covered by the

expression “voluntary retirement” within the meaning of the exception contained in the clause (a)

of section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the same will not fall within the definition

of the retrenchment.

14. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra), and

also in view of entire evidence on record, it cannot be said that the termination of the services of

petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. 13-10-2015 is illegal and unjustified. Accordingly, issue No.1 is

decided in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner.

Issue No. 2 :

15. Since, the petitioner has failed to prove issue No.1, above, this issue becomes

redundant.

Issue No. 3 :

16. 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.

8022

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

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 9th day of August, 2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla.

_________

IN THE COURT OF SUSHIL KUKREJA, PRESIDING JUDGE, H.P. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA

Ref. No.

111 of 2016

Instituted on 4-11-2016

Decided on

9-8-2018

Raj Kumar s/o Shri Pyar Chand, r/o Village Desah, P.O. Kopra, Tehsil Barsar, Distt.

Hamirpur, H.P.

. .Petitioner.

Vs

The Employer/Management, M/s Ashoka Spanners Pvt. Ltd., Baddi, District Solan, H.P.

. .Respondent.

Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

For petitioner :

Ms. Manisha Negi, Advocate vice Shri Vipin Bhatia, Advocate

For respondent :

Shri Rajiv Sharma, Advocate.

AWARD

The following reference has been received from appropriate government by this court for

adjudication:

“Whether termination of service of Shri Raj Kumar s/o Shri Pyar Chand, r/o Village

Desan, P.O. Kodra, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur H.P. w.e.f. 11-11-2015 by the

Employer/Management of M/s Ashoka Spanners Pvt. Limited Baddi, Tehsil Baddi,

District Solan, 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/management?”

2.

Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that he was working as helper from 1997 and after

that he was promoted as packing supervisor from 2004 and was getting the monthly salary of

8023

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

` 9,000/- and he was doing all types of manual jobs for which he was asked to do and thereafter

w.e.f. 18.11.2015 the services of the petitioner were terminated illegally without complying with

the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as to Act) and

other labour laws and was not allowed to enter the gate of the industry without any justified cause.

It is further stated that the petitioner had completed 240 days as per section 25-B of the Act and

neither retrenchment notice was issued to him nor any enquiry was conducted by the respondent

and even in lieu of notice no compensation and other benefits were paid to him. That the petitioner

had expressed his grief before many authorities and had lodged several complaints in different

departments against the conduct of the respondent but no effective result came out from the efforts

of the petitioner. That the petitioner is the only earning member in the family and the service was

the only source of his income. Against this back-drop it has been prayed that the respondent be

directed to compensate the petitioner alongwith back wages, seniority and past service benefits.

3.

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

preliminary objection has been taken qua maintainability as the petitioner was working as

supervisor and the managers and supervisors do not fall under the definition of workers. On merits,

it has been asserted that the petitioner had left the job with receiving his all pending dues before the

year 2004 by his own mistakes and again requested the company to join the same and had again

joined in the year 2004 and resigned on 10-11-2015 and the provisions of the Act, are not

applicable in the present 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

respondents.

5.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 11-10-2017 :—

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

11-11-2015 without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is

illegal and unjustified?

. .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) Relief.

6.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and 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.

8024

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

Reasons for findings

Issues No. 1:

8.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the services of the petitioner have

been terminated illegally without complying with the provisions of the Act as before terminating

his services neither any notice was issued to the petitioner nor any enquiry was conducted against

him despite the fact that he had completed 240 days in each calendar year.

9.

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

petitioner had tendered his resignation voluntarily which was accepted by the respondent and even

the petitioner had accepted his full and final dues from the respondent company, hence, the

termination of his services does not arise at all.

10. To prove his case, the petitioner stepped into the witness box as PW-1 to depose that

he had been working as helper with the respondent w.e.f. the year 1997 and worked for about 18

years and there were about more than 200 workers working in the company at the time of his

termination. He further deposed that no appointment letter was issued to him at the time of his

appointment and the respondent company terminated his services without any reason and closed the

gate. He also deposed that neither any notice was issued to him nor any compensation was paid to

him before his termination. He was drawing salary @ ` 1100/- at the time of his appointment and at

the time of his termination he was getting salary @ ` 9000/- after deducting PF and ESI

contribution and he is unemployed after his illegal termination. He deposed that he had lodged a

complaint regarding his termination against the respondent company before the Labour

Commissioner and to Prime Minister of India vide Mark P-1, mark P-2 and Mark P-3 and vide

Mark P-4 to P-6 he had made complaints to SHO Baddi and SDM Nalagarh and vide Mark P-7 and

P-8 he had made complaints to Chief Minister of H.P. In cross-examination, he denied that he had

signed letter dated 25-1-2000 for appointment in the factory of respondent. He further denied that

he had left the job in the year 2003. He also denied that on 1-10-2004 vide mark R-7 he had applied

for re-joining. He denied that vide letter dated 1-10-2004 Mark R-1, he was appointed as a packing

supervisor. He further denied that on 10-11-2015 he had resigned from his post vide letter Mark R

2. He also denied that he had received his full & final legal dues vide receipt Mark R-3. He denied

that he had signed the vouchers Mark R-4 to Mark R-6. He further denied that he had resigned from

the job at his own sweet will.

11. PW-2 Shri Sanjay Kumar, Store Keeper of respondent company deposed that when the

services of the petitioner were terminated at that time he was present and the petitioner had taken

him to the Police Station Baddi and the complaint Mark P-9 has been signed by him at point A

encircled in red. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had signed Ex. RX at point A encircled

in red. PW-3 Shri Avinash Kumar, Senior Assistant from the office of EPFO deposed that as per

the record the EPF contribution of the petitioner has been deposited by the respondent from

October 2004 till July 2013 and thereafter only the share of employee i.e petitioner has been

deposited upto December 2015 and tendered in evidence the certified copy of ledger card Ex. PW-

3/A.

12. On the other hand, the respondent has examined one Shri Shyam Sunder as RW-1 who

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

made in the reply. He also tendered in evidence the authority letter Ex. RW-1/B, the copy of Bio

data form Ex. RW-1/C, the copy of resignation Ex. RW-1/D, receipts Ex. RW- 1/E to Ex. RW-1/G

and letter dated 1-10-2004 Ex. RW-1/H. In cross-examination, he denied that the petitioner was not

doing the work of supervisor. He further denied that only the designation of the petitioner was

supervisor and he was doing manual work. He also denied that the petitioner had never resigned

8025

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

from service and has not received his full & final dues. He denied that the petitioner was working

as an operator. It is correct that the petitioner had completed 240 days in preceding twelve months.

He further admitted that no notice and no enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. He denied

that the petitioner was illegally terminated.

13. I have closely scrutinized the entire record of the case and after the closure scrutiny

thereof it has become clear that the petitioner was earlier working with the respondent till the year

2004 and had also taken his pending dues from the respondent. However, on his request he again

joined the respondent company as a packing supervisor as per the letter dated 1-10-2004 Ex. RW-

1/H written by the petitioner to the respondent company. Thereafter, the petitioner himself resigned

from the job on 10-11-2015 vide letter Ex. RW-1/D. The perusal of the resignation letter Ex. RW

1/D shows that the petitioner himself had tendered his resignation on 10-11-2015 due to some

domestic problem and also requested the respondent to accept his resignation and to pay him full &

final dues. His resignation was accepted on 21-11-2015 vide endorsement on Ex. RW-1/D and

thereafter he had received his dues by way of vouchers dates 21-11-2015 Ex. RW-1/E to Ex. RW-

1/G. The petitioner has also executed a receipt regarding the full and final settlement of the dues

from the respondent on 21-11-2015 which is Ex. RX in the presence of PW-2 Shri Sanjay Kumar

who admitted in his cross-examination that the receipt Ex. RX bears his signatures at point A

encircled in red. Therefore, as the petitioner had tendered his resignation voluntarily and had also

received his all dues by way of full and final settlement from the respondent company, hence, the

relationship of employer and employee between the parties came to an end. In (1990) 4 SCC 27,

J.K Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd. Vs. State of U.P and others, the effect

of voluntary resignation was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it was held that when

an employee voluntarily tender his resignation, it is an act by which he voluntarily gives up his job

and therefore, such a situation is covered by the expression “Voluntary retirement”. The relevant

portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:

“8. In the present case the employee’s request contained in the letter of resignation

was accepted by the employer and that brought an end to the contract of service. The

meaning of term 'resign' as found in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary includes

'retirement’. Therefore, when an employee voluntarily tenders his resignation it is an

act by which he voluntarily gives up his job. We are, therefore, of the opinion that

such a situation would be covered by the expression 'voluntary retirement’ within the

meaning of clause (i) of Section 2(s) of the State Act. In Santosh Gupta’s case

Chinnappa Reddy, J. observed as under:

"Voluntary retrenchment of a workman or the retrenchment of the workman on

reaching the age of superannuation can hardly be described as termination, by

the employer, of the service of a workman".

(Here the word 'retrenchment’ has reference to 'retirement’.)

The above observation clearly supports the view which commends itself to us. We are,

therefore, of the opinion that the High Court was not right in concluding that because

the employer accepted the resignation offer voluntarily made by the employee, he

terminated the service of the employee and such termination, therefore, fell within the

expression 'retrenchment' rendering him liable to compensate the employee under

section 6-N. We are also of the view that this was a case of 'voluntary retirement'

within the meaning of the first exception of section 2(s) and therefore the question of

grant of compensation under section-6 N does not arise. We, therefore, cannot allow

the view of the High Court to stand”.

In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner that he had tendered his resignation

under duress, coercion or misrepresentation rather he had accepted his full & final dues vide

8026

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

vouchers Ex. RW-1/E to Ex. RW-1/G and receipt Ex. RX dated 21-11-2015. Therefore, if the

petitioner had tendered his resignation and accepted his full & final dues, then in the absence of any

fraud, coercion or duress being proved, the service of the petitioner comes to an end. In view of the

aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, such a situation would be covered by the

expression "voluntary retirement" within the meaning of the exception contained in the clause (a)

of section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the same will not fall within the definition

of the retrenchment.

14. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra), and

also in view of entire evidence on record, it cannot be said that the termination of the services of

petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. 11-11-2015 is illegal and unjustified. Accordingly, issue No.1 is

decided in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner.

Issue No. 2 :

15. Since, the petitioner has failed to prove issue No.1 above, this issue becomes

redundant.

Issue No. 3 :

16. 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 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 9th day of August, 2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla.

____________

20-3-2018.

Present:

Shri Vishal Sharma, Advocate for applicant.

Shri Hoshiyar Kaushal, Advocate vice csl. for respondent.

This order shall dispose of an application filed by the applicant under section 151 CPC for

setting aside the dismissal order dated 1-7-2017 in reference No. 131/2016 and for the restoration

of reference No. 131/2016. It has been averred in the application that due to bonafide mistake, the

counsel for the applicant has got noted down wrong date of hearing as 11.7.2017 instead of

1.7.2017 and the non-appearance of the applicant and her counsel was neither willful nor

8027

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

intentional. On the basis of the above mentioned averments it has been prayed that the application

be allowed and the order dated 1.7.2017 be set aside and the reference be restored to its original

number.

2. Reply not filed.

3.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and closely scrutinized the entire

record, and from the closer scrutiny thereof it has become clear that on 1-7-2017 none appeared on

behalf of the petitioner despite the case having been called several times and this Court had passed

an award in the absence of the petitioner and the reference was answered against her. This Court

can take the judicial notice of the fact that the aforesaid award was published vide notification dated

11-9-2017 issued by the appropriate government. The present application has been filed for

restoration of the case on 12-7-2017 i.e before the publication of the award. It is by now well

settled that this Court has the jurisdiction and power to re-call and set aside an ex-parte award if

sufficient cause is shown by the party which prevented him from appearing before the Court. In

AIR 1981 SC 606, Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal and

others, it has been held that where a party is prevented from appearing at the hearing due to a

sufficient cause then in such circumstances, the Tribunal has not only the power but also the duty to

set aside the ex-parte award and to direct the matter to be heard afresh. The relevant portion of the

aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:

“6. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal had the power to pass the impugned order

if it thought fit in the interest of justice. It is true that there is no express provision in

the Act or the rules framed there under giving the Tribunal jurisdiction to do so. But

it is a well known rule of statutory construction that a Tribunal or body should be

considered to be endowed with such ancillary or incidental powers as are necessary to

discharge its functions effectively for the purpose of doing justice between the parties.

In a case of this nature, we are of the view that the Tribunal should be considered as

invested with such incidental or ancillary powers unless there is any indication in the

statute to the contrary. We do not find any such statutory prohibition. On the other

hand, there are indications to the contrary.

7.

……………………..

8. ……………..………

9.

……………..………

10. When sub-sec. (1) of S. 11 expressly and in clear terms confers power upon the

Tribunal to regulate its own procedure, it must necessarily be endowed with all powers

which bring about an adjudication of an existing industrial dispute, after affording all

the parties an opportunity of a hearing. We are inclined to the view that where a party

is prevented from appearing at the hearing due to a sufficient cause, and is faced with

an ex parte award, it is as if the party is visited with an award without a notice of the

proceedings. It is needless to stress that where the Tribunal proceeds to make an

award without notice to a party, the award is nothing but a nullity. In such

circumstances, the Tribunal has not only the power but also the duty to set aside the

ex-parte award and to direct the matter to be heard afresh”.

In Anil Sood Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court-II (2001) 10 SCC 534, the Labour

Court had rejected the recall application on the ground that after making the award, it

became functus officio in the matter. The order of the Labour Court was challenged before

the High Court but the High Court also took the same view. However, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court referred to its earlier decision in Grindlays Bank (supra) and held that if there is

8028

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

sufficient cause shown which prevented a party from appearing, then of the party is visited

with an award without a notice which is nullity and therefore the Tribunal will have the

power to set aside the ex-parte award. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are

reproduced as under:

“6. The aspect that the party against whom award is to be made due opportunity to

defend has to be given is a matter of procedure and not that of power in sense in which

the language is adopted in Section 11. When matters are referred to the tribunal or

court they have to be decided objectively and the tribunals/courts have to exercise

their discretion in a judicial manner without arbitrariness by following the general

principles of law and rules of natural justice.

7.

The power to proceed ex-parte is available under Rule 22 of the Central Rules

which also includes the power to inquire whether or not there was sufficient cause for

the absence of a party at the hearing, and if there is sufficient cause shown which

prevented a party from appearing, then of the party is visited with an award without a

notice which is nullity and therefore the Tribunal will have no jurisdiction to proceed

and consequently, it must necessarily have power to set aside the ex-parte award.

8.

It this be the position in law, both the High Court and The Tribunal (sic Labour

Court) fell into an error in stating that the Labour Court had become functus officio

after making the award though ex-parte. We set aside the order made and the award

passed by the Labour Court and affirmed by the High Court in this regard, in view of

the fact that learned counsel for the respondent conceded that application filed by the

appellant be allowed, set aside the ex parte award and restore the reference. To decide

the matter afresh, the parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 11-12-2000 to

take further directions as regards the proceedings. As the matter is very old, it would

be appropriate for the Labour Court to dispose of this reference as expeditiously as

possible but not later than six months from today”.

Thus, from the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has become clear that

this Court has the power to set aside the ex-parte award if there is sufficient cause shown by the

party which prevented him from appearing before the Court. In the present case it has been

categorically stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that on 17-6-2017, he has noted down

the wrong date of hearing as 11-7-2017 instead of 1-7-2017 and his non-appearance before this

Court was neither intentional nor wilful. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, sufficient cause has

been shown by the learned counsel for the applicant which prevented him from appearing before

this Court on 1-7-2017.

4.

Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the application

filed by the applicant is allowed. The award dated 1-7-2017 is set aside and the reference is ordered

to be restored to its original number. The application after completion be tagged with the main case

file.

Announced:

20-3-2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Shimla.

8029

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

20-3-2018.

Present:

Shri Vishal Sahrma, Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Hoshiyar Kaushal, Advocate for respondent.

Vide my separate order passed in Application No. 67 of 2017, the award dated 1-7-2017 is

set aside and the present reference is ordered to be restored to its original number.

Now, list the case for filing of rejoinder on 16-4-2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla.

___________

IN THE COURT OF SUSHIL KUKREJA, PRESIDING JUDGE, H.P. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA

App. No. :

28 of 2012

Instituted on:

20-7-2012

Decided on:

14-8-2018

Fazal Deen s/o Shri Gulam Deen r/o Village Dhangwala, P.O. Kaulanwala Bhood, Tehsil

Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P.

. .Petitioner.

Vs.

The Executive Engineer, HPSEB Ltd., Division Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P.. .Respondent.

Claim petition under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

For petitioner :

Ms. Yogita Dutta, Advocate.

For respondent :

Shri Rajinder, Advocate vice Shri Ramakant Sharma, Advocate.

ORDER

Facts in brief as narrated in the application are that the petitioner was engaged as

T-mate/Beldar by the respondent on daily wage basis in the year, 1987 and continued as such upto

December 1995 when his services were dis-engaged/retrenched without observing the mandatory

provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as to Act) and without following

the principles of last come first go as the persons junior to the petitioner are still working and even

fresh recruitments have also been made by the respondents after the disengagement of the petitioner

without observing the mandatory provisions of section 25-H of the Act. It is further averred that

after the disengagement, the petitioner was not gainfully employed anywhere. Against this back

drop it has been prayed that the petitioner be reinstated in service with all benefits including back-

wages.

8030

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

2.

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

preliminary objections have been taken that the petition is not tenable in the eyes of law, petition is

hopelessly time barred and hit by law of limitation, estoppel etc. On merits, it has been asserted that

initially the petitioner was engaged as daily waged on 21-10-1994 on muster-roll basis and he

worked as such till 31-3-1995 for a period of 99 days and he had not completed 240 days in any

calendar year, hence, there is a delay of 17 years in raising the industrial dispute. It is further

asserted that the petitioner had left the job at his own and did not turn up and since the petitioner

has not completed 240 days of continuous service, hence, he is not entitled to the notice or one

month salary. The respondent prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

3.

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

respondent.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by this Court on

5-4-2018 :—

(1) Whether the termination of the services of applicant by the respondent during

December 1995 without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 is illegal and unjustified as alleged?

. .OPP.

(2) If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what relief of service benefits the petitioner is

entitled to?

. .OPP.

(3) Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged?

. .OPR.

(4) Relief.

5.

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

case carefully.

6.

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

findings on the aforesaid issues are as under:—

Issue No. 1: No

Issue No. 2: Becomes redundant

Issue No. 3: Yes

Relief :

Application dismissed per operative part of order

Reasons for findings

Issues Nos.1 & 3:

7.

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

and decision.

8.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the services of the petitioner had

been terminated by the respondent 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. She further contended that the junior persons to the petitioner are still working with the

8031

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

respondent and fresh workers have been engaged in violation of the provisions of section 25-G and

25-H of the Act.

9.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the claim of the

petitioner is highly belated and stale. He further contended that the services of the petitioner have

never been terminated by the respondent who had left the job at his own without any intimation to

the respondent Board. He also contended that the petitioner had not completed 240 days in any

calendar year and no junior to the petitioner had been retained and no fresh hands had been

engaged by the respondent, hence, he is not entitled to any relief.

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

he was engaged as beldar by the Board in the year 1987 and he had worked continuously upto the

year 1995 and had completed 240 days in each calendar year. He further deposed that he was

terminated from service in December 1995 without issuance of any notice and without payment of

any compensation and after his termination he raised the demand notice before the Labour-cum

Conciliation Officer Nahan but no decision was taken by the Labour–cum-Conciliation Officer on

his demand notice and thereafter the present application was moved by him in March 2012. He also

stated that he is unemployed from the date of his termination. In cross-examination he denied that

he was engaged by the Board on 21-10-1994. He further denied that he had worked upto 21-3-

1995. He also denied that he had not completed 240 days in any calendar year. He denied that the

Board had not retained any junior person. He further denied that the present dispute was raised by

him after a period of 17 years.

11. PW-2 Shri Jitender Singh deposed that he was engaged as beldar by the Board in the

year 1994 and his services were terminated on 31-3-1995. He further deposed that the petitioner

was senior to him in service and he was re-instated in service upon the orders of the Court. He also

stated that Lal Singh and Jai Singh who were juniors to the petitioner have been retained by the

Board upon the orders of the Court. In cross-examination, he denied that no junior persons to the

petitioner have been retained by the Board.

12. Shri Manish Kumar, Junior Office Assistant of respondent appeared into the witness

box as PW-3 to depose that the record w.e.f. the year 1987 till the year 1993 is not available in their

office and tendered in evidence the copies of muster-rolls of the petitioner Ex. PW-3/A to Ex. PW-

3/E. In cross-examination, he admitted that as per the record the petitioner joined the Board on 7-

11-1994 and worked till 31-3-1995 for 99 days. He further admitted that the petitioner had not

completed 240 days in any calendar year.

13. On the other hand, the respondent has examined one Shri Satish Kumar, Assistant

Engineer who deposed that the petitioner was engaged as beldar on daily wage on 21-10-1994 and

he worked as such till 31-3-1995 for 99 days and no junior to him was retained by the Board. In

cross-examination, he denied that the petitioner had worked for all the working days in the month

of October 1994. He further denied that the record pertaining to the petitioner w.e.f. year 1987 to

the year 1994 has been deliberately withheld by the Board. He also denied that the Board had

terminated the services of the petitioner without any reason. He denied that he petitioner had

completed 240 days in each calendar year.

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

thereof, it has become clear that the petitioner had worked with the respondent w.e.f. 7-11-1994 to

31-3-1995 which fact is evident from the muster-rolls of the petitioner Ex. PW-3/A to Ex. PW-3/E.

No doubt, the case of the petitioner is that the respondent had engaged him as daily waged beldar in

the year 1987 but to this effect no evidence has been led by him which could go to show that he

was engaged in the year 1987. From the perusal of muster-rolls Ex. RW-3/A to Ex. RW-3/E it is

also clear that the petitioner had not completed 240 days in any calendar year and in twelve

8032

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

calendar months preceding his termination. It is also clear from the record that the present

application has been filed by the petitioner on 20-7-2012 i.e after a gap of more than 17 years.

Now, the question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the application

is stale and highly belated. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under the

Industrial Disputes, no limitation is prescribed and the provision of Article 137 of the 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. Therefore, the

position of law in respect of a stale claim is required to be seen.

15. In (2013) 14 SCC 543, titled as Assistant Engineer Rajasthan State Agriculture

Marketing Board, Sub-Division Kota Vs. Mohan Lal, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex

Court that though the Limitation Act is not applicable to the reference made under the I.D Act but

delay in raising Industrial Dispute is an important circumstance for exercise of judicial discretion in

determining relief that is to be granted. The relevant portion of aforesaid judgment is reproduced as

under:

“19. We are clearly of the view that though the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the

reference made under the ID Act but delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely an

important circumstance which the Labour Court must keep in view at the time of exercise of

discretion irrespective of whether or not such objection has been raised by the other side.

The legal position laid down by this Court in Gitam Singh that before exercising its judicial

discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors including the mode and

manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which

termination has been set aside and the delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of

relief in an industrial dispute, must be invariably followed.”

16. In Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka Vs. Shivalinga reported in (2002) 10

SCC 167, the services of the employee were terminated on 25-5-1985 and he approached the

Labour Officer on 17-3-1995 and then the reference was made by the Government to the Labour

Court. There was a delay of more than nine years in approaching the Labour Officer. In para 6 of

the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:

“Learned counsel for the appellant strongly relied on the reasoning of the Labour Court and

contended that the view of the High Court would not advance the cause of justice. Learned

counsel for the respondent relied upon two decisions of this Court in Ajaib Singh vs. Sirhind

Coop. Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. (1999) 6 SCC 82 and Sapan Kumar

Pandit vs. U.P. SEB (2001) 6 SCC 222 to contend that there is no period of limitation

prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act to raise the dispute and it is open to a party to

approach the Court even belatedly and the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal can

properly mould the relief by refusing or awarding part-payment of back wages. It is no

doubt true that in appropriate cases, as held by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions,

such steps could be taken by the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, as the case may

be, where there is no such dispute to relationship between the parties as employer and

employee. In cases where there is a serious dispute, or doubt in such relationship and

records of the employer become relevant, the long delay would come in the way of

maintenance of the same. In such circumstances to make them available to a Labour Court

or the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute appropriately will be impossible. A

situation of that nature would render the claim to have become stale. That is exactly the

situation arising in this case. In that view of the matter, we think the two decisions relied

upon by the learned counsel have no application to the case on hand.”

Thus, it has been held that in case there is a serious dispute or doubt in such relationship and

the records of the employer become relevant, the long delay would come in the way of maintenance

of the same.

8033

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

17. In Haryana State Coop. Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam reported in (2005) 5

SCC 91, the employee was discontinued from service w.e.f. 30-5-1986 and he raised the demand

notice on 30-9-1993 and thereafter the reference was sent to the Labour court by the appropriate

government. The Labour Court passed an order answering the reference against the employee

holding that the claim was belated. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed before the Hon’ble High

Court which was allowed and the employee was directed to be reinstated in service with continuity

of service but without back-wages. The Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High

Court and restored the judgment of the Labour Court as a result the reference stood answered

against the workman. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:

13. “In Ajaib Singh (supra), the management did not raise any plea of delay. The Court

observed that had such plea been raised, the workman would have been in a position to

show the circumstances which prevented him in approaching the Court at an earlier stage or

even to satisfy the Court that such a plea was not sustainable after the reference was made

by the Government. In that case, the Labour Court granted the relief, but the same was

denied to the workman only by the High Court. The Court referred to the purport and object

of enacting Industrial Disputes Act only with a view to find out as to whether the provisions

of the Article 137 of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable or

not. Although, the Court cannot import a period of limitation when the statute does not

prescribe the same, as was observed in Ajaib Singh (supra), but it does not mean that

irrespective of facts and circumstances of each case, a stale claim must be entertained by the

appropriate Government while making a reference or in a case where such reference is

made the workman would be entitled to the relief at the hands of the Labour Court.”

14. “The decision of Ajaib Singh (supra) must be held to have been rendered in the fact

situation obtaining therein and no ratio of universal application can be culled out therefrom.

A decision, as is well-known, is an authority of what it decides and not what can logically

be deduced therefrom Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. Vs. Uttam Manohar Nakate, JT 2005 (1) SC

303], and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr. para 42.”

15. In Balbir Singh vs. Punjab Roadways and Another [(2001) 1 SCC 133], as regard Ajaib

Singh (supra), this Court observed :

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the Tribunal committed

error in denying relief to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The learned

counsel submitted that in industrial dispute delay should not be taken as a ground for

denying relief to the workman if the order/orders under challenge are found to be

unsustainable in law. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of

Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Coop. Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. [(1999)

6 SCC 82 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1054 : JT (1999) 3 SC 38].

6. “We have carefully considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the

petitioner. We have also perused the aforementioned decision. We do not find that any

general principle as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been laid

down in that decision. The decision was rendered on the facts and circumstances of the

case, particularly the fact that the plea of delay was not taken by the management in

the proceeding before the Tribunal. In the case on hand the plea of delay was raised

and was accepted by the Tribunal. Therefore, the decision cited is of little help in the

present case. Whether relief to the workman should be denied on the ground of delay

or it should be appropriately moulded is at the discretion of the Tribunal depending on

the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt the discretion is to be exercised

judicially."

8034

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

16. “Yet again in Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka vs. Shivalinga [(2002) 10 SCC

167], a Bench of this Court observed :

“6. Learned counsel for the appellant strongly relied on the reasoning of the Labour Court

and contended that the view of the High Court would not advance the cause of justice.

Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon two decisions of this Court in Ajaib Singh

vs. Sirhind Coop. Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. (1999) 6 SCC 82 and

Sapan Kumar Pandit vs. U.P. SEB (2001) 6 SCC 222 to contend that there is no period of

limitation prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act to raise the dispute and it is open to a

party to approach the Court even belatedly and the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal

can properly mould the relief by refusing or awarding part-payment of back wages. It is no

doubt true that in appropriate cases, as held by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions,

such steps could be taken by the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, as the case may

be, where there is no such dispute to relationship between the parties as employer and

employee. In cases where there is a serious dispute, or doubt in such relationship and

records of the employer become relevant, the long delay would come in the way of

maintenance of the same. In such circumstances to make them available to a Labour Court

or the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute appropriately will be impossible. A

situation of that nature would render the claim to have become stale. That is exactly the

situation arising in this case. In that view of the matter, we think the two decisions relied

upon by the learned counsel have no application to the case on hand."

17. “In Nedungadi Bank Ltd. (supra), a Bench of this Court, where S. Saghir Ahmad was a

member [His Lordship was also a member in Ajaib Singh (supra), opined :

“6. Law does not prescribe any time-limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its

powers under Section 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of

time and to revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exercised reasonably

and in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central

Government has exercised powers in this case after a lapse of about seven years of the order

dismissing the respondent from service. At the time reference was made no industrial

dispute existed or could be even said to have been apprehended. A dispute which is stale

could not be the subject-matter of reference under Section 10 of the Act. As to when a

dispute can be said to be stale would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

When the matter has become final, it appears to us to be rather incongruous that the

reference be made under Section 10 of the Act in the circumstances like the present one. In

fact it could be said that there was no dispute pending at the time when the reference in

question was made."

(Emphasis supplied).

18. In (2006) 5 SCC 433 in case titled as UP State Road Transport Corporation Vs.

Babu Ram, the termination was dated 19-9-1983 and the reference was made on 29-8-1998. The

Labour Court has held the termination as un-valid without considering the question of delay. The

Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that no

material was placed on record to show that the dispute was raised within reasonable time and the

employee was not responsible for delay. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is

reproduced as under:

“10. It is to be noted that the High Court has very cryptically disposed of the writ petition.

The workman has not placed any material to show that it had raised dispute within a

reasonable time, and/or that he was not responsible for delayed decision if any in the

conciliation proceedings. It was for him to show that the dispute was raised within a

reasonable time and that he was not responsible for any delay. The High Court, on a

8035

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

hypothetical basis has assumed that the dispute might have been raised promptly but

delayed by the State Government and he cannot be penalized for delay in finalizing the

conciliation proceedings and the reference. But neither the Labour Court nor the High Court

has even noted the factual position. The conclusion was based on surmises and

conjectures.”

19. In Assistant Engineer, CAD Kota Vs. Dhan Kunwar reported in (2006) 5 SCC

481, the delay was of about eight years in raising the dispute. The Labour Court granted

reinstatement with 30 % back-wages. The writ petition and writ appeal filed by the employer were

dismissed. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court set aside the judgments of Hon’ble High Court and

the Labour Court and held that no relief should have been granted. The relevant portion of the

aforesaid judgment is reproduced herein under:

“9. In the background of what has been stated above, the Labour Court should not have

granted relief. Unfortunately, learned Single Judge and the Division Bench did not consider

the issues in their proper perspective and arrived at abrupt conclusions without even

indicating justifiable reasons…………………..

20. In UP State Road Transport Corporation Vs Ram Singh and another (2008) 17

SCC 627, the termination was dated 15-3-1973 and the reference was dated 15-6-1986 and there

was a delay of about 13 years in making the reference. The reference was dismissed on the ground

of delay. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:

“ 7. We are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court erred

in not setting aside the award of the Labour Court. Apart from the unacceptable manner in

which the appellant was denied the opportunity of participating in the proceedings,

including being debarred from cross-examining the respondent, the Labour Court could not

have entertained the industrial dispute given the enormous delay. This Court has in several

decisions has held that while delay cannot by itself be sufficient reason to reject an

industrial dispute, never the less the delay cannot be un-reasonable. The decision in Prakash

Chander Sahu has reaffirmed this principal. The reason for diligence and promptness lies in

the fact that the records pertaining to an employee might have been destroyed and it would

be difficult to obtain witnesses who would be competent to give evidence so many years

later if the Labour Court wishes to hold a further enquiry into the matter. In the present

case, the delay of 13 years is unreasonable. The mere fact that the respondent was making

repeated representations would not justify his raising the issue before the Labour Court after

13 years. In any event, the last representation was made in 1983 and the industrial dispute

was admittedly raised in 1986. The lack of diligence on the part of the respondent is

apparent."

21. In a recent judgment of our Hon’ble High Court delivered in CWP No. 1912 of 2016

titled as Bego Devi Versus State of HP and others decided on 26-10-2016, it has been held as

under:

“9. It is beaten law of land that delay takes away the settings of law. A person who

does not seek relief within time, his petition has to be dismissed only on the grounds of

delay and laches, otherwise, it would amount to gross misuse of jurisdiction and

disturb the settled position”.

22. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the

facts of this case are required to be seen. The services of the petitioner were stated to be terminated

on 31-3-1995 and he filed the present application on 20-7-2012 i.e after a period of more than 17

8036

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

years. But the petitioner has failed to explain the delay of 17 years in filing the present application

as no evidence in this respect has been placed on record by the petitioner. The present application

has been filed directly before this Court by the petitioner. At this stage, it would be relevant to

reproduce section 2-A of the Act which reads as under:

“2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial

dispute.

(1) Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches, or otherwise terminates

the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that

workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge,

dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute

notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to

the dispute.

(2) ………………………………

(3) The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or

Tribunal before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal,

retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-section (1)."

The perusal of sub section (3) of section 2-A of the Act reveals that limitation is prescribed

for moving the application under section 2-A of the Act which shall be made to the Labour Court or

Tribunal before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or

otherwise termination of service. In the present case as observed earlier according to the petitioner

himself his services were terminated w.e.f. March 1995. However, the present application has been

filed by him on 20-7-2012 after more than 17 years from the date of his termination i.e much after

the period of limitation as prescribed under sub-section (3) of section 2A of the Act. Therefore, the

present application is hopelessly barred by limitation and is not maintainable and liable to be

dismissed on the ground of delay in making the application.

23. On merits, from the perusal of evidence led by the parties, the petitioner has failed to

prove on record that he had worked for 240 days in preceding twelve months prior to 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 Panchayat 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.”

8037

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

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. The petitioner has failed to

prove on record that he had put in 240 days in twelve calendar months preceding his termination.

There is no iota of evidence which could go to show that the petitioner had completed 240 working

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.

24. The learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that at the time of the termination

of the petitioner, the respondent had retained his juniors and had engaged fresh hands who are still

working as such the respondent had violated the principles of “last come first go”. However, no

satisfactory evidence has been led by the petitioner to this effect. Though, PW-2 deposed that he

(PW-2) as well as Lal Singh, Jai Singh were juniors to the petitioner and they have been retained

upon the orders of the Court, however, except for the bald statement of PW-2 there is no other

evidence on record to this effect. No appointment letter has been produced by PW-2 in order to

prove the date of his appointment and the date of appointment of Lal Singh and Jai Singh by the

respondent. Similarly, no Court orders have been produced by PW-2 in order to prove that they

were retained by the respondent upon the orders of the Court. Therefore, in the absence of any

documentary evidence on record the oral statement of PW-2 cannot be relied upon. Moreover, as

observed earlier, the petitioner had filed the present application after a period of 17 years as such

there is no question of consideration of equal treatment with the junior persons who have allegedly

been retained/engaged. To take this view, I am fortified with the judgment of our own Hon’ble

High Court in CWP No. 4515/2012 decided on 13.6.2012, titled as Suraj Mani Vs. HPSEB

wherein it has been held that the petitioners cannot claim equal treatment after about two decades

with the juniors who have allegedly been retained. The petitioner who slept for a long period of 17

years is not entitled to claim any relief on the ground of equal treatment. Since, the application has

been proved to be stale and belated as such the protection of sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act

cannot be granted to the petitioner.

25. Thus, keeping in view the above cited rulings and the material fact that the petitioner

had filed the present application after a lapse of about 17 years as such no relief can be granted to

him. Hence, it cannot be said that the termination of the services of the petitioner is illegal and

unjustified. Consequently, both these issues are answered against the petitioner.

Issue No.2 :

26. Since, the petitioner has failed to prove issue No.1, above, this issue becomes

redundant.

Relief :

As a sequel to my findings on the aforesaid issues, the application filed by the petitioner

fails and is hereby dismissed. Let a copy of this award/order 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 14th day of August, 2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla.

8038

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

IN THE COURT OF SUSHIL KUKREJA, PRESIDING JUDGE, H.P. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA

Ref. No. 90 of 2017

Instituted on 7-6-2017

Decided on 9-8-2018

Shobha Ram s/o Shri Kesru, r/o Village Jagohi, P.O. Devdhar, Tehsil Gohar, District

Mandi, H.P.

. .Petitioner.

Vs

The Director of Horticulture, Horticulture Department, Nav Bahar, Shimla-171002 H.P.

. .Respondent.

Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

For petitioner :

Shri Varun Rana, Advocate vice Shri Amar Deep Singh, Advocate.

For respondent :

Shri Mohinder Singh, ADA.

AWARD

The following reference has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication:

“Whether termination of services of Shri Shobha Ram s/o Shri Kesru, r/o Village

Jagohi, P.O. Devdhar, Tehsil Gohar, District Mandi, H.P. who was employed as safai

karamchari on contract basis by the Director of Horticulture, Nav Bahar, Shimla-2

H.P. w.e.f. 1.4.2016 allegedly without complying with the provisions of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what relief including reinstatement,

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

worker is entitled to from the above employer?”

2.

In nutshell the case of the petitioner is that on 1-1-2003, he was engaged as safai

karamchari on contract wages by the respondent and he was doing his duties diligently and

honestly without any complaint regarding his work from anyone in the department but to the utter

dismay of the petitioner, his services were orally terminated on 31-3-2016 without any notice and

against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as to Act). It is

further stated that the respondent is indulged in unfair labour practice and always had a vindictive

attitude towards the petitioner and since 2014 the respondent always tried to dispense with the

services of the petitioner without any cause. The petitioner since 2003 tried his level best to give his

best performance during the course of his engagement but instead of getting any admonition from

the respondent, his services were dispensed with on 31-3-2016. It is also asserted that the petitioner

is a very poor man and he has no other source of income and he served in the office of respondent

for 12 years continuously and had completed 240 days in each calendar year and at the age of 57

years he had been thrown out from service without any notice and without paying compensation as

per the provisions of the Act. That after the completion of 8 years of service, the petitioner is

entitled for regularization but instead of regularizing his services, he had been thrown out from the

service and other persons who are much junior to the petitioner have been retained/re-engaged in

8039

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

violation of the principles of first come last go. Against this back-drop it has been prayed that the

respondent be directed to re-engage the petitioner w.e.f. 31-3-2016 with all consequential benefits

and to consider her case for appointment from the date of completion of 8 years of service.

3.

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

preliminary objections have been taken qua maintainability, that the petitioner does not fall within

the ambit of Act etc. On merits, it has been asserted that the petitioner was initially allotted the

work on contract basis for one year vide letter dated 4-6-2002 for cleanliness of outer premises of

the respondent being lowest one in the comparative statement of the quotations i.e @ ` 1600/- per

month and he had been working from year to year basis right from 2002 and during the year 2015

the petitioner was allotted work on contract basis by calling the quotations from different interested

party/persons vide letter dated 7-3-2015 and the petitioner being the lowest one in the comparative

statement, the work was allotted to him for one year w.e.f. 1-4-2015 to 31-3-2016 and the contract

was valid upto 31-3-2016 and on completion of the contract, no work was allotted to the petitioner

and as such he has no claim after 31-3-2016. It is further asserted that the petitioner himself has

executed the affidavit on 7-4-2015 swearing therein that he has been allotted the work for the year

2015-16 on contract basis and he shall not be entitled for government service in lieu of the work

allotted to him and since the work was allotted to the petitioner on contract basis from time to time

and he used to work for 2-3 hours in a day, hence, the question of completing 240 days in each

calendar year, regulations of his services and retaining his juniors does not arise and he cannot

invoke this provision for his own benefit. With the aforesaid averments the respondent prayed for

the dismissal of the claim petition.

4.

By filing rejoinder, the petitioner reiterated the allegations as made in the claim

petition by denying those of the respondent.

5.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 14-12-2017 :—

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

1-4-2016 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?

. .OPP.

(3) Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged?

. .OPR.

(4) Relief.

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

case.

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.

8040

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

Reasons for findings

Issues No. 1 :

8.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that being a safai karamchari the

services of the petitioner had been terminated illegally without complying with the provisions of

the Act especially when the petitioner had completed 240 days in each calendar year. He further

contended after the termination of the services of the petitioner, the respondent had retained juniors

and engaged new persons in violation of the provisions of sections 25-G & 25-H of the Act.

9. On the other hand, the learned ADA for respondent contended that the respondent had

allotted the work of cleanliness of outer premises of respondent office to the petitioner by inviting

tenders and the quotations of the petitioner being lowest one in the comparative statement of

quotations, the work was allotted to him on contract basis which was being renewed on year to year

basis and his services stood automatically came to an end on the completion of contract, hence,

there is no violation of any provision of the Act.

10. To prove his case, the petitioner stepped into the witness box as PW-1 to depose that

he was working as safai karamchari on contract basis with the respondent department from the

year, 2003 to the year 2016 and thereafter his services were terminated on 31-3-2016 without

issuance of any notice and compensation. He further deposed that he had completed 240 days in

each calendar year and after his termination he made a representation to the department for his re-

engagement but he was not re-instated. In cross-examination, he denied that his services were never

engaged by the respondent. He admitted that in the year 2002, he got contract for cleanliness of

outer and indoor premises of the respondent department. He denied that his working hours were

only for 2-3 hours. He admitted that his contract was renewed on every year on bid basis. He

further admitted that in the year 2015 he again got contract of the said work and the contract was

from 1-4-2015 to 31-3-2016. He admitted that he had submitted the affidavit Mark RX to the

department. He further admitted that he was never engaged by the department as safai karamchari

and he was given contract for doing the work of cleanliness.

11. On the other hand, the respondent has examined one Shri Ranjeet Singh, Clerk as RW

1 who tendered in evidence letter dated 4-6-2002 Ex. RW-1/A, comparative statement dated

3-5-2002 Ex. RW-1/B, tender notice dated 7-3-2015 Ex. RW-1/C, proceedings dated 24-3-2015 Ex.

RW-1/D, comparative statement dated 24-3-2015 Ex. RW-1/E, letter dated 27-3-2015 Ex. RW-1/F

and copy of affidavit Ex. RW-1/G.

12. RW-2 Shri Chander Mohan, Superintendent Grade-1 tendered in evidence his affidavit

Ex. RW-2/A wherein he reiterated almost all the averments as made in the reply. He also tendered

in evidence the authority letter Ex. RW-2/B. In cross-examination, he denied that the petitioner had

been working as sweeper from the year 2003 till the year 2016. He admitted that the contract of

cleaning the premises for every year was being granted in favour of the petitioner from the year

2003 till the year 2016. He denied that the affidavit was obtained from the petitioner under

pressure. He further denied that the petitioner had completed 240 days in each calendar year.

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

thereof, it has become clear that the petitioner was initially allotted the work on contract basis by

the respondent for a period of one year for the year 2002-2003 w.e.f. 4-6-2002 vide letter Ex. RW-

1/A for cleanliness of the premises of the Directorate @ ` 1600/- per month as his quotation was

lowest in the comparative statement of quotations Ex. RW-1/B. RW-2 specifically deposed in his

evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW-2/A that the petitioner had been working from year to year

basis right from the year 2002 on contract basis being the lowest one in quotation and comparative

8041

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

list. He further deposed that during the year 2015 the petitioner was allotted the work on contract

vide letter dated 7-3-2015 by calling the quotations from interested parties and since the quotation

of the petitioner was the lowest one, he was allotted the work of cleanliness @ 5000/- per month for

one year commencing from 1-4-2015 to 31-3-2016 and on the completion of the contract the

petitioner was not allotted any work due to non-availability of the funds with the department. RW-2

was cross-examined at length however nothing favourable could be elicited from his lengthy cross-

examination. The petitioner had also executed an affidavit Ex. RW-1/G on 7-4-2015 wherein he

had stated that he had been allotted the work for the year 2015-16 on contract basis and he shall not

be entitled for government service in lieu of the work assigned to him. Even, the petitioner has

admitted in his cross-examination that he had given the aforesaid affidavit. He further admitted that

in the year 2002 he got contract for cleanliness of outer and indoor premises of the respondent

department since his bid was the lowest. He also admitted that the contract was renewed on every

year on bid basis. He further admitted that in the year 2015 he again got contract of the said work

and the contract was from 1-4-2015 to 31-3-2016. The petitioner was under an obligation to lead

cogent and satisfactory evidence on record that he was engaged as safai karamchari on daily wage

basis in the year 2002 and had worked continuously till 31-3-2016. However, except for his bald

statement no evidence has been led by the petitioner in this respect. Rather, the evidence on record

particularly the admission of petitioner himself shows that the petitioner was allotted the work of

cleanliness on contract on year to year basis and the last contract was w.e.f. 1-4-2015 to 31-3-2016

and thereafter on the completion of the contract no work was allotted to the petitioner. Thus, it

cannot be said that the petitioner was engaged as safai karamchari by the respondent and his

services were terminated on 31-3-2016 as such the question of applicability of sections 25-F, 25-G

and 25-H of the Act does not arise at all.

14. Therefore, in view of my foregoing discussion and also in the absence of any cogent

and satisfactory evidence on record it cannot be said that the termination of the services of the

petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. 1-4-2016 without complying with the provisions of the Act is

illegal and unjustified. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the respondent and against

the petitioner.

Issue No. 2 :

15. Since, the petitioner has failed to prove issue No.1 above, this issue becomes

redundant.

Issue No. 3 :

16. In support of this issue, no evidence has been led by the respondent which could go to

show as to how the present petition is not maintainable especially when the petitioner has filed the

present petition pursuant to the reference sent by the appropriate government to this Court for

adjudication and I find nothing wrong with the present petition which is perfectly maintainable.

Therefore, in the absence of any evidence on record, it cannot be said the petition is not

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 with the result 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.

8042

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

Announced in the open Court today on this 9th day of August, 2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla.

_________

IN THE COURT OF SUSHIL KUKREJA, PRESIDING JUDGE, H.P. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA

Ref. No. 91 of 2017

Instituted on 7-6-2017

Decided on 9-8-2018

Maina Devi w/o Shri Shobha Ram, r/o Village Jagohi, P.O. Devdhar, Tehsil Gohar, District

Mandi. H.P.

. .Petitioner.

Vs.

The Director of Horticulture, Horticulture Department, Nav Bahar, Shimla-171002 H.P.

. .Respondent.

Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

For petitioner :

Shri Varun Rana, Advocate vice Shri Amar Deep Singh, Advocate.

For respondent :

Shri Mohinder Singh, ADA.

AWARD

The following reference has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication:

“Whether termination of services of Smt. Maina Devi w/o Shri Shobha Ram, r/o

Village Jagohi, P.O. Devdhar, Tehsil Gohar, District Mandi, H.P. who was employed

as safai karamchari on contract basis by the Director of Horticulture, Nav Bahar,

Shimla 2 H.P. w.e.f. 1.4.2016 allegedly without complying with the provisions of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what relief including

reinstatement, amount of back-wages, seniority, past service benefits and

compensation the above ex-worker is entitled to from the above employer?”

2.

In nutshell the case of the petitioner is that on 1-1-1999, she was engaged as safai

karamchari on contract wages by the respondent and she was doing her duties diligently and

honestly without any complaint regarding her work from anyone in the department but to the utter

dismay of the petitioner, her services were orally terminated on 31-3-2016 without any notice and

against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as to Act). It is

further stated that the respondent is indulged in unfair labour practice and always had a vindictive

attitude towards the petitioner and since 2015 the respondent always tried to dispense with the

services of the petitioner without any cause. The petitioner since 1999 tried her level best to give

8043

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

her best performance during the course of her engagement but instead of getting any admonition

from the respondent, her services were dispensed with on 31-3-2016. It is also asserted that the

petitioner is a very poor lady and she has no other source of income and she served in the office of

respondent for 16 years continuously and had completed 240 days in each calendar year and at the

age of 55 years she had been thrown out from service without any notice and without paying

compensation as per the provisions of the Act. That after the completion of 8 years of service, the

petitioner is entitled for regularization but instead of regularizing her services, she had been thrown

out from the service and other persons who are much junior to the petitioner have been retained/re-

engaged in violation of the principles of first come last go. Against this back-drop it has been

prayed that the respondent be directed to re-engage the petitioner w.e.f. 31-3-2016 with all

consequential benefits and to consider her case for appointment from the date of completion of 8

years of service.

3.

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

preliminary objections have been taken qua maintainability, that the petitioner does not fall within

the ambit of Act etc. On merits, it has been asserted that the petitioner was initially allotted the

work on contract basis for one year vide letter dated 26-3-2002 for cleanliness of outer premises of

the respondent being lowest one in the comparative statement of the quotations i.e @ ` 3500/- per

month and she had been working from year to year basis right from 1999 and during the year 2015

the petitioner was allotted work on contract basis by calling the quotations from different interested

party/persons vide letter dated 7-3-2015 and the petitioner being the lowest one in the comparative

statement, the work was allotted to her for one year w.e.f. 1-4-2015 to 31-3-2016 and the contract

was valid upto 31-3-2016 and on completion of the contract no work was allotted to the petitioner

and as such she has no claim after 31-3-2016. It is further asserted that the petitioner herself has

executed the affidavit on 7-4-2015 swearing therein that she has been allotted the work for the year

2015-16 on contract basis and she shall not be entitled for government service in lieu of the work

allotted to her and since the work was allotted to the petitioner on contract basis from time to time

and she used to work for 2-3 hours in a day, hence, the question of completing 240 days in each

calendar year, regulations of her services and retaining her juniors does not arise and she cannot

invoke this provision for her own benefit. With the aforesaid averments the respondent prayed for

the dismissal of the claim petition.

4.

By filing rejoinder, the petitioner reiterated the allegations as made in the claim

petition by denying those of the respondent.

5.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 14-12-2017:—

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

1-4-2016 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?

. .OPP.

(3) Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged?

. .OPR.

(4) Relief.

6.

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

case.

7.

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

findings on the aforesaid issues are as under :

8044

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

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

Issues No.1.

8.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that being a safai karamchari the

services of the petitioner had been terminated illegally without complying with the provisions of

the Act especially when the petitioner had completed 240 days in each calendar year. He further

contended after the termination of the services of the petitioner, the respondent had retained juniors

and engaged new persons in violation of the provisions of sections 25-G & 25-H of the Act.

9.

On the other hand, the learned ADA for respondent contended that the respondent had

allotted the work of cleanliness of outer premises of respondent office to the petitioner by inviting

tenders and the quotation of the petitioner being lowest one in the comparative statement of

quotations, the work was allotted to her on contract basis which was being renewed on year to year

basis and her services stood automatically came to an end on the completion of contract, hence,

there is no violation of any provision of the Act.

10. To prove her case, the petitioner stepped into the witness box as PW-1 to depose that

she was engaged as safai karamchari by the respondent in the year 1998 for 15 days and thereafter

she was engaged in the year 1999 and she working continuously till 30-3-2016 and then her

services were terminated on 31-3-2016 without issuance of any notice and compensation. She

further deposed that she had completed 240 days in each calendar year and after her termination she

made a representation to the department for her re-engagement but she was not re-instated. In

cross-examination, she denied that she was never engaged as a safai karmachari by the respondent.

She further denied that she was working on contract basis from the year 1999. She also denied that

in the year 2002, she got contract for doing cleanliness work in the department. She denied that her

contract was being renewed on year to year basis from the year 2002. She further denied that she

received the contract in the year 2015 for a period of one year as her bid was lowest. She admitted

that she gave the affidavit Mark RX. She denied that her work was for 2-3 hours. She further

denied that she had never completed 240 days in any calendar year.

11. On the other hand, the respondent has examined one Shri Ranjeet Singh, Clerk as

RW-1 who tendered in evidence letter dated 26-3-2002 Ex. RW-1/A, comparative statement dated

25-3-2002 Ex. RW-1/B, tender notice dated 7-3-2015 Ex. RW-1/C, proceedings dated 24-3-2015

Ex. RW-1/D, comparative statement dated 24-3-2015 Ex. RW-1/E, letter dated 27-3-2015 Ex. RW-

1/F and copy of affidavit Ex. RW-1/G.

12. RW-2 Shri Chander Mohan, Superintendent Grade-1 tendered in evidence his affidavit

Ex. RW-2/A wherein he reiterated almost all the averments as made in the reply. He also tendered

in evidence the authority letter Ex. RW-2/B. In cross-examination, he denied that the petitioner had

been working as sweeper from the year 1998 till the year 2016. He further denied that the petitioner

was working as regular sweeper in the department since the year 1999. He also denied that the

petitioner had completed 240 days in each calendar year. He admitted that the contract of the

8045

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

petitioner was not renewed due to non-availability of funds. He denied that they have not renewed

the contract of the petitioner as the cleanliness work was outsourced in the year 2016.

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

thereof, it has become clear that the petitioner was initially allotted the work on contract basis by

the respondent for a period of one year for the year 2002-2003 w.e.f. 1-4-2002 vide letter Ex. RW-

1/A for cleanliness of the premises of the Directorate @ ` 3500/- per month as her quotation was

lowest in the comparative statement of quotations Ex. RW-1/B. RW-2 specifically deposed in his

evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW-2/A that the petitioner had been working from year to year

basis right from the year 1999 on contract basis being the lowest one in the quotation and

comparative list. He further deposed that during the year 2015 the petitioner was allotted the work

on contract vide letter dated 27-3-2015 by calling the quotations from interested parties and since

the quotation of the petitioner was the lowest one, she was allotted the work of cleanliness @

4000/- per month for one year commencing from 1-4-2015 to 31-3-2016 and on the completion of

the contract the petitioner was not allotted any work due to non-availability of the funds with the

department. RW-2 was cross-examined at length however nothing favourable could be elicited

from his lengthy cross-examination. The petitioner had also executed an affidavit Ex. RW-1/G on

7-4-2015 wherein she had stated that she had been allotted the work for the year 2015-16 on

contract basis and she shall not be entitled for government service in lieu of the work assigned to

her. Even, she admitted in her cross-examination that she had given the aforesaid affidavit. Though,

she had stated that the affidavit was obtained by the then Director from her under pressure.

However, to this effect no evidence has been led by the petitioner. The petitioner was under an

obligation to lead cogent and satisfactory evidence on record that she was engaged as safai

karamchari on daily wages basis in the year 1999 and had worked continuously till 31-3-2016.

However, except for her bald statement, no evidence has been led by the petitioner in this respect.

Rather, the evidence on record shows that the petitioner was allotted the work of cleanliness on

contract on year to year basis and the last contract was w.e.f. 1-4-2015 to 31-3-2016 and thereafter

on the completion of the contract no work was allotted to the petitioner. Thus, it cannot be said that

the petitioner was engaged as safai karamchari by the respondent and her services were terminated

on 31-3-2016 as such the question of applicability of sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act does

not arise at all.

14. Therefore, in view of my foregoing discussion and also in the absence of any cogent

and satisfactory evidence on record it cannot be said that the termination of the services of the

petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. 1.4.2016 without complying with the provisions of the Act is

illegal and unjustified. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the respondent and against

the petitioner.

Issue No. 2 :

15. Since, the petitioner has failed to prove issue No.1 above, this issue becomes

redundant.

Issue No.3 :

16. In support of this issue, no evidence has been led by the respondent which could go to

show as to how the present petition is not maintainable especially when the petitioner has filed the

present petition pursuant to the reference sent by the appropriate government to this Court for

adjudication and I find nothing wrong with the present petition which is perfectly maintainable.

Therefore, in the absence of any evidence on record, it cannot be said the petition is not

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

respondent.

8046

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

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 with the result 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 9th day of August, 2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla.

___________

24-8-2018

Present:

None.

As per track consignment report and as per AD received back, the notice issued to the

petitioner has been duly served. Case called repeatedly in pre and post lunch sessions but neither

the petitioner nor any Advocate on her behalf has appeared before this Court despite the fact that

the petitioner has been duly served which clearly shows that at present the petitioner is not

interested to pursue her case arising out of the reference sent by the appropriate government to this

Court for adjudication. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to decide the

reference on the basis of the material whatsoever is available on the file. The following reference

has been sent by the appropriate government for adjudication to this Court:

“Whether termination of the services of Smt. Surjeet Kumari w/o Shri Dharam Pal,

r/o Village Illewal, P.O. Golthai, Tehsil Shri Naina Devi Ji, Distt. Bilaspur, H.P. C/o

Shri Satish Kumar, President, H.P. AITUC, Distt. Committee Solan H.Q. House No.

276, Phase III, Housing Board, Baddi, Distt. Solan w.e.f. 09-10-2015 by the

management of M/s Captab, Biotech Unit-II, Plot No. 125, EPIP Phase-1, Jharmajri,

Tehsil Baddi, Distt. Solan, H.P., without complying with the provisions of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what relief including

reinstatement, amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and

compensation the above ex-worker is entitled to from the above management?”

From the aforesaid reference, it is clear that the petitioner has alleged her termination w.e.f.

9-10-2015 to be illegal and unjustified but despite having been duly served, she has failed to appear

before this Court and to file statement of claim in support of her contention arising out of reference.

There is no material on record/file which could go to show that the termination of the services of

the petitioner w.e.f. 9-10-2015 is illegal and unjustified. Hence, in the absence of any material on

record, this Court is left with no other alternative but to answer the reference against the petitioner

and as such the reference is answered against the petitioner and the award is passed accordingly.

Let a copy of this order/award be sent to the appropriate government for publication in the official

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

Announced:

24-8-2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Labour Court, Shimla,

Camp at Nalagarh.

8047

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

IN THE COURT OF SUSHIL KUKREJA, PRESIDING JUDGE, H.P. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA

Ref. No. 73 of 2015

Instituted on 1-10-2015

Decided on 20-8-2018

Prem Thakur w/o Shri Birbal Thakur, Friends Colony, Chambaghat, Solan, Distt. Solan,

H.P. through Shri Anoop Kumar, General Secretary, Himachal Futuristic Communications Ltd.

Mazdoor Sangh Chambaghat, Solan through Shri J.C. Bhardwaj, President, HP-AITUC, HQ.

Saproon, Solan, H.P.

. .Petitioner.

Vs

M/s Himachal Futuristic Communications Limited (wireline/wireless division), Electronics

Complex, Chambaghat, Solan-173213, H.P. through its Factory Manager . .Respondent.

Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

For petitioner :

Shri J.C Bhardwaj, AR.

For respondent :

Shri Rahul Mahajan, Advocate.

AWARD

The following reference has been received from appropriate government by this court for

adjudication:

“Whether demand raised by Shri Anoop Kumar, General Secretary, Himachal

Futuristic Communications Ltd. Mazdoor Sangh, Chambaghat, Solan, H.P. vide

demand notice dated 17-7-2014 (copy enclosed) before the Factory Manager/Employer

M/s Himachal Futuristic Communications Ltd., Chambaghat, Distt. Solan, H.P.

regarding withdrawal of retirement orders No. HFCL/HRD/2014, dated 31-1-2014 in

respect of Smt. Prem Thakur, Employees Code No. 6020, is legal and justified? If yes,

what relief including reinstatement, back wages and other service benefits the

aggrieved workman is entitled to from the above management?”

2.

Smt. Prem Thakur (hereinafter referred as to petitioner) has filed the present claim

petition through Shri Anoop Kumar, General Secretary, Himachal Futuristic Communications Ltd.

Mazdoor Sangh Chambaghat, Solan. Facts in brief as narrated in the claim petition are that Anoop

Kumar is the elected General Secretary of the Himachal Futuristic Communications Mazdoor

Sangh which is a registered trade union under the Trade Union Act, 1926 in the respondent

establishment, hence, the union is competent to sue the respondent establishment before this Court.

That on 31-1-2014 the petitioner was ordered to be retired from the post of senior technician

wrongfully on misconceived basis as 3-1-1956 which was taken into the account as her date of birth

for the purpose of superannuation by the respondent which is wrong and misconceived date of birth

whereas the actual date of birth of petitioner is 1-1-1959 which was not taken into the consideration

while retiring her from the services on 31-1-2014 despite the fact that she had submitted her birth

certificate authenticated from the Registrar of birth and death, Gram Panchayat Baloh, Tehsil

Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P. It is further stated that after the pre-mature order of retirement on

31-1-2014 the petitioner approached the union of which she was a member and the union took her

8048

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

matter in the general house of the union and as such the union had raised a demand notice under

section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as to Act) on 17-7-2014

wherein the union had apprized the management that the petitioner had been retired from the

service at the age of 55 years whereas as per the certified standing orders of the company and as per

the Model Standing Orders, the age of retirement is 58 years. That on 30-3-2012 the respondent

management wrote a letter to petitioner wherein it has been stated that there is no record of her date

of birth and she was asked to submit proof of her date of birth upon which on 3-4-2012 the

petitioner submitted her voter ID as proof of her date of birth and thereafter another letter was

written by the management asking again therein for submission of proof of her date of birth and

then the petitioner submitted a letter on 4-10-2013 alongwith an affidavit wherein she had declared

her date of birth on 1-1-1959 in support of Voter Card but the management did not accept the

affidavit submitted by the petitioner and wrote a letter on 11-12-2013 that she will be retired on

3-1-2014 as her date of birth is still 3-1-1956. That the respondent management has alleged in letter

dated 12-11-2013 that her date of birth as per EPF nomination form and ESI declaration form is

3-1-1956 but the same was never filled by the petitioner herself and were contrarily filled by the

HR department of the company and her all representations and requests were turned down by the

management in a very arbitrary manner. It is also stated that the wrongful order of retirement on

31-1-2014 be deemed as retrenchment from service in view of the course of events which espoused

this dispute in question and this retirement is arbitrary and imaginary. That since the petitioner had

submitted exclusive proof as the birth certificate from the Registrar of birth and death and as such

she is entitled to remain in the service for 3 years more till she turns 58 years old. Against this

backdrop it has been prayed that the impugned order of retirement dated 31-1-2014 be set aside and

the petitioner be reinstated in the service of respondent company since the date of her wrongful

superannuation i.e. 31-1-2014 with full back-wages, seniority, continuity and other consequential

service benefits.

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

preliminary objections have been taken qua maintainability as the retirement/superannuation does

not amount to termination and there exists no employee employer relationship between the

respondent and the petitioner from the date of her superannuation. On merits, it has been asserted

that the petitioner had retired/superannuated after attaining the age of 58 years in terms of certified

standing orders of the respondent company and as per the terms of appointment letter and the

retirement/superannuation does not amount to retrenchment and on retirement the relationship of

employer and employee comes to an end. It is denied that the date of birth of the petitioner is

1-1-1959. That the petitioner was rightly retired on 31-1-2014 as she had attained the age of 58

years and her date of birth is 3-1-1956 and at the time of submitting of application form, she herself

had provided the date of birth and declaration submitted under the EPF scheme and Employees

Pension Scheme. It is further asserted that the demand notice raised by the union was duly replied

by the management and there is no violation of provisions of section 25-N of the Act. That the

respondent had paid all the legal dues towards full & final settlement to the petitioner on her

retirement and even the petitioner had utilized the entire amount remitted to her on her

superannuation and the demand notice raised by the union is bad in law as the dispute raised by the

union qua the petitioner does not fall within the definition of section 2-k of the Act. That the

petitioner herself had provided the date of birth certificate as 3-1-1956 and she attained the age of

58 years on 31-1-2014, hence, she was rightly retired from service at the age of 58 years. The

respondent prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition.

4.

By filing rejoinder, the petitioner reaffirmed her allegations by denying those of the

respondent.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 9-11-2016 :—

8049

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

(1) Whether the demand raised by petitioner union vide demand notice dated 17-7-2014

regarding withdrawal of retirement orders No. HFCL/HRD/012014 dated 31-1-2014 in

respect of Smt. Prem Thakur 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 present petition is neither competent nor maintainable as alleged? . .OPR.

(4) Relief.

6.

I have heard the AR for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and 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 petitioner was wrongly ordered to be

retired from service by the respondent on 31-1-2014 at the age of 55 years on misconceived basis

and the respondent had wrongly recorded her date of birth as 3-1-1956 whereas as per the birth

certificate, the actual date of birth of the petitioner is 1-1-1959 which was not taken into

consideration while retiring her. He further contended that as per certified standing orders of the

company the retirement age of employee is 58 years but the petitioner was ordered to be retired on

attaining the age of 55 years. He also contended that wrongful retirement of the petitioner amounts

of illegal retrenchment without compliance of section 25-N of the Act.

9.

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

was rightly given retirement on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years in terms of

appointment letter and certified standing orders of the company as in the nomination and

declaration form submitted under the EPF Scheme 1952 and Employees Pension Scheme 1995, the

petitioner herself had submitted her date of birth as 3-1-1956, hence, she is not entitled to any

relief.

10. To prove her case, the petitioner stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and tendered in

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

claim petition. She also tendered in evidence the copy of her birth certificate Ex. PW-1/B, copy of

demand notice Ex. PW-1/C, copy of letter dated 30-3-2012 Mark X, copy of voter Identity Card

Ex. PW-1/D, copy of letter dated 30-8-2013 Ex. PW-1/E, copy of letter dated 4-10-2013 alongwith

copy of affidavit Ex. PW-1/F, copy of letter dated 11-12-2013 Mark X-2, letter dated 14-1-2014

8050

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

Mark X-3 and copy of experience certificate Ex. PW-1/G. In cross-examination, she admitted that

appointment letter Ex. R-1 was issued to her by the respondent and she had signed it at point A

encircled in red. She further admitted that she had signed the form Ex. R-2 which contains all the

particulars. She also admitted that she had signed the nomination and declaration form under PF

Act Ex. R-3. She further admitted that the birth certificate Ex. PW-1/B has been issued on

5-5-2014. She denied that her date of birth is 3-1-1956 as per her service record. She admitted that

after her retirement on 31-1-2014, she was paid an amount of ` 1,30,181/-. She denied that she was

given retirement at the age of 58 years as per the terms and conditions of appointment letter and

certified standing orders of the company.

11. PW-2 Shri Anup Kumar Sharma, General Secretary of Union deposed that the

petitioner is the member of their union and the union had raised a demand notice Ex. PW-1/C under

section 2-k of the Act. In cross-examination, he admitted that Mark X-1 is the certified standing

orders of the company. He further admitted that the respondent company had filed reply to the

demand notice raised by the union.

12. On the other hand, the respondent has examined one Shri G. S. Rana, Assistant

Manager as RW-1 who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. RW-1/A wherein he reiterated almost

all the averments as made in the reply. He also tendered in evidence the authority letter Ex. RW-

1/B and Board resolution Mark RX-1. In cross-examination, he denied that the column regarding

date of birth encircled in red at point A of Ex. R-3 has been filled later on. He admitted that the

letter Mark X had been written by their officer. He admitted that Mark RX does not bear the

signatures of petitioner as well as the employer. He denied that the employment form Ex. R-2 does

not belong to the petitioner. He further denied that the signature of the petitioner on Ex. R-2 has

been fabricated. He also denied that the petitioner was retired from service two years prior to her

attaining the age of superannuation.

13. I have closely scrutinized the entire evidence on record and after the closure scrutiny

thereof it has become clear that the petitioner got retired from service on 31-1-2014. The perusal of

the record further reveals that at the time of joining service with the respondent the petitioner

herself had submitted her date of birth as 3-1-1956 in the employment form Ex. R-2. In the

declaration and nomination form submitted under the Employees Provident Funds and Employees

Pension Scheme Ex. R-3 also, she submitted her date of birth as 3-1-1956. In cross-examination the

petitioner had admitted her signatures on the employment form Ex. R-2 and also on the nomination

and declaration form under EPF Scheme Ex. R-3. In the identity certificate issued by the ESI Mark

X also, the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 3-1-1956. At this stage it would be relevant

to take note of clause 5 sub clause ii (b) and clause 41 of the Certified Standing Orders of the

respondent company Mark X-1 which read as under:

“5 ii (b) The date of birth of a workman once entered in the service record of the

establishment shall be the evidence of his age in relation to all matters pertaining to his

service including fixation of the date of his retirement from the service of the

establishment. All formalities regarding recording of the date of birth shall be

finalized within three months of the appointment of workman.

41. Superannuation: The age of retirement on superannuation of a workman/employee

shall be such as may be agreed upon between the employer and the workman under an

agreement or as specified in a settlement or award which is binding on both the

workman and the employer, where, there is no such agreed age, retirement or

superannuation shall be on completion of fifty eight years of age by the workman.”

8051

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

From the perusal of the aforesaid clauses of the certified standing orders, it has become

clear that the date of birth of a workman once entered in the service record of the establishment

shall be the evidence of his age in relation to all matters pertaining to his service including fixation

of the date of his retirement and all formalities regarding recording of the date of birth shall be

finalized within three months of the appointment of workman and in the absence of any settlement/

agreement the age of retirement or superannuation of a workman shall be on completion of 58

years. As per the case of the respondent, the petitioner was rightly given retirement on 31-1-2014

on her attaining the age of superannuation on completion of 58 years. However, the case of the

petitioner is that since her date of birth is 1-1-1959, therefore, she was given pre-mature retirement.

However, as seen from the clause 5(ii)(b) of the Certified Standing Orders of the respondent

company, all the formalities with respect to the recording of date of birth has to be finalized within

a period of three months from the date of appointment of a workman. But in the present case

admittedly the petitioner had sought correction of her date of birth in the year, 2012 i.e. at the fag

end of her carrier. The Hon’ble Apex Court in (1993) 2 SCC 162 titled as Union of India Vs.

Harnam Singh has held that the correction in date of birth cannot be allowed in view of the

unexplained and inordinate delay. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as

under:

“7. ………………………………………..The date of birth entered in the service

records of a civil servant is, thus of utmost importance for the reason that right to

continue in service stands decided by its entry in the service record. A Government

servant who has declared his age at the initial stage of the employment is, of course,

not precluded from making a request later on for correcting his age. It is open to a

civil servant to claim correction of his date of birth, if he is in possession of the

irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth as different from the one earlier recorded

and even if there is no period of limitation prescribed for seeking correction of date of

birth,

the

Government

servant

must

do

so

without

any

unreasonable

delay…………………………….………………………………………………

A Government servant who makes an application for correction of date of birth

beyond the time, so fixed, therefore, cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction

of his date of birth even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of

birth is clearly erroneous. The law of limitation may operate harshly but it has to be

applied with all its rigour and the courts or tribunals cannot come to the aid of those

who sleep over their rights and allow the period of limitation to expire. Unless altered,

his date of birth as recorded would determine his date of superannuation even if it

amounts to abridging his right to continue in service on the basis of his actual age”.

From the aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court it is clear that a Government

servant who makes an application for correction of date of birth beyond the time so fixed cannot

claim as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth even if he has good evidence to

establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous.

14. Similarly, in (1994) 6 SCC 302, titled as State of T.N Vs. T.V. Venugopalan, it has

been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the inordinate delay in making the application is itself

a ground for rejecting the correction of date of birth. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment

is reproduced as under:

“7………………………………...…… This Court has, repeatedly, been holding that the

inordinate delay in making the application is itself a ground for rejecting the

correction of date of birth. The government servant having declared his date of birth

as entered in the service register to be correct, would not be permitted at the fag end of

8052

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

his service career to raise a dispute as regards the correctness of the entries in service

register. It is common phenomenon that just before superannuation, an application

would be made to the Tribunal or court just to gain time to continue in service and the

Tribunal or courts are unfortunately unduly liberal in entertaining and allowing the

government employees or public employees to remain in office, which is adding an

impetus to resort to the fabrication of the record and place reliance thereon and seek

the authority to correct it”.

In CWP No. 6378 of 2010-G titled as Ram Singh Vs. Indian Railways and ors. decided

on 5.3.2013, our Hon’ble High Court has held that the person who wakes up from deep

slumber is not entitled to correction of date of his birth as recorded in his service record. It

has further been observed that it is well settled that a prayer for correction of the date of

birth should not be dealt by the High Courts/Tribunals keeping in view the interest of the

public servant concerned alone, but also chain of reactions, more particularly, the

prospectus of others waiting from years together for their promotion. The relevant portion

of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:

“20. It is again well settled that a prayer for correction of the date of birth should not

be dealt by the High Courts/Tribunals keeping in view the interest of the public

servant concerned alone, but also chain of reactions, more particularly, the prospectus

of others waiting from years together for their promotion. The observation qua this

aspect of the matter made by the apex court in R. Kirubakaran’s case, supra reads as

follows:

“7. An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the

Courts, Tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned.

It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of

the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for

years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are

likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of

birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which

time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may

lose the promotion for ever. Cases are not unknown when a person accepts

appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. According

to us, this is an important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the Court or the

Tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of

his date of birth”.

In the present case also the date of birth of the petitioner entered in her service record is

3-1-1956 as per the employment form Ex. R-2 and declaration and nomination form under EPF

Scheme Ex. R-3 signed by the petitioner herself. As observed earlier, the certified standing orders

of the respondent company provides that all formalities regarding the recording of the date of birth

shall be finalized within three months of the appointment of workman. Therefore, the petitioner

was required to make representation for correction of her date of birth in service record within a

period of three months from the date of her appointment. However, she had not taken any steps

within the prescribed period for correction of her date of birth. Rather she had sought correction of

her date of birth at the fag end of her carrier. Admittedly, the birth certificate Ex. PW-1/B has been

issued on 5-5-2014 and the petitioner has not led any evidence with respect to the fact that on what

basis her date of birth was recorded in the aforesaid certificate Ex. PW-1/B. The onus to prove that

her date of birth is wrongly entered in the service record was upon the petitioner, however, she has

failed to discharge the same. Moreover, it cannot be believed that the petitioner came to know

about her date of birth recorded wrongly in her service record only on 30-3-2012 when she received

8053

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

letter dated 30-3-2012 Mark X from the respondent company. Therefore, the petitioner who

remained silent for a period of more than 20 years is not entitled for correction of her date of birth

at the fag end of her carrier as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and also by our own

Hon’ble High Court (supra).

15. In view of my foregoing discussion and in view of law laid down (supra) it cannot be

said that the demand raised by the union vide demand notice dated 17-7-2014 regarding withdrawal

of retirement orders no. HFCL/HRD/01-2014 dated 31-1-2014 in respect of Smt. Prem Thakur is

illegal and unjustified. Accordingly, this issue 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. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since the petitioner had retired

from service as such she ceased to be a “workman” hence the present petition is not maintainable as

the retirement/superannuation does not amount to retrenchment/termination because on retirement/

superannuation the employee and employer relationship between the parties comes to an end and

therefore no industrial dispute can be raised. However, this contention of the learned counsel for

the respondent is devoid of any force because as per section 2 (k) of the Act, the “Industrial Dispute

means any dispute or difference between employees and employers, or between employers and

workmen; or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-

employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person. In the

present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was the employee of respondent and that she had

retired from service. She had raised the present dispute with regard to the correction of her date of

birth in the service record, hence, the present dispute relates to the terms of employment for the

period she was in service of the respondent. Therefore, I hold that the present dispute is not barred

on account of the fact that the petitioner ceased to be an employee after her retirement and as such

it cannot be said that the petition is not maintainable as contended by the learned counsel for the

respondent. 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 with the result 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 20th day of August, 2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla.

8054

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

IN THE COURT OF SUSHIL KUKREJA, PRES IDING JUDGE, H.P. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHIMLA

Ref. No. 83 of 2015

Instituted on 1-12-2015

Decided on 7-8-2018

Jai Singh s/o Shri Mithun Lal, r/o Village Nalikilod (Dharjja), P.O. Oachghat, Tehsil and

District Solan, H.P.

. .Petitioner.

Vs.

1.

The Administrator Bal Bharti Public School and activity centre, Gladi-Dhank, P.O.

Oachghat Tehsil and District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

2. The Principal, Bal Bharti Public School, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital Marg, New Delhi-

110060.

. .Respondents.

Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

For petitioner :

Shri J.C. Bhardwaj, AR.

For respondents :

Ms. Anshu Kala, Advocate vice Shri Kartik Kumar, Advocate.

AWARD

The following reference has been received from appropriate government by this court for

adjudication:

“Wheter termination of the services of Shri Jai Singh s/o Shri Mithun Lal, r/o Village

Nalikilod (Dharjja), P.O. Oachghat, Tehsil & District Solan, H.P. employed as

Security Guard, by the (i) The Administrator, Bal Bharti Public School Gladi Dhank,

P.O. Oachghat, Tehsil & District Solan, H.P. (ii) The Principal, Bal Bharti Public

School, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital Marg, New Delhi-110060 w.e.f. 10-03-2014 without

complying with 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

school management?”

2.

Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that at the first instance he was engaged during the

month of March 2010 on the construction work and thereafter he was employed as Security Guard

during the month of March 2011 on permanent basis and remained continued till his illegal

termination from service on 26-3-2013 by the administrator and thereafter the petitioner raised

demand notice against his termination on 30-6-2013 upon which conciliation proceedings were

held on 15.7.2013 wherein the respondents had assured the petitioner for his reengagement but he

was not re-engaged as security guard and he was deployed on construction work and thereafter

w.e.f. 10-3-2014 the respondents had again terminated his services without any cogent reasons and

justifications and that too without any notice, retrenchment compensation and without the

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

further stated that the petitioner had completed 240 days in every calendar year and also preceding

to his termination, hence, his services are continuous for the purpose of section 25-B of the Act and

8055

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

even before terminating the services of the petitioner he was never served with any show cause

notice or chargesheet and further no enquiry was ever held in accordance with the law of natural

justice. It is further stated that the services of junior workmen in the same establishment were

retained by the respondent while terminating the service of a senior workman in violation of

sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act. Against this back-drop it has been prayed that the respondents

be directed to reinstate the petitioner in employment since the date of his illegal termination i.e

10-3-2014 with full backwages, seniority and other service benefits.

3.

By filing reply, the respondent No.1 contested the claim of the petitioner wherein

preliminary objections have been taken that there was no relationship of master and servant

between the petitioner and respondent No.1, that the respondent No.1 is not an industry, that no

cause of action has ever arisen in favour of the petitioner, that the petitioner misrepresented the

facts. On merits, it has been asserted that the petitioner had worked with Bal Bharti Activity Centre

which is a separate and distinct legal entity, hence, the question of termination of the petitioner by

respondent No.1 does not arise and even the services of the petitioner were utilized by Bal Bharti

Activity Centre intermittently in the exigencies of the work and he was not in their continuous

employment. It is further asserted that the respondent No.1 was informed by Bal Bharti Activity

Centre that the petitioner had stopped reporting for work and had stared some vocation and his

services were never terminated. The respondent No.1 prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition.

4.

By filing separate reply the respondent No. 2 contested the claim wherein preliminary

objections have been taken that the order of reference in incompetent and had in law and this Court

has no jurisdiction qua respondent No. 2, that there was no relationship of master and servant

between petitioner and respondent No. 2 etc. On merits it has been asserted that the respondent

No. 2 had not employed any person either directly or through any agency at Solan and the

petitioner was never in the employment of respondent No. 2 at any point of time and as such the

question of termination of his service by respondent No. 2 did not arise. The respondents No. 2

prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition.

5.

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

respondents.

6.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by this Court on

29-11-2016 :—

(1) Whether the termination of the services of the petitioner by the respondents w.e.f.

10-3-2014 without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is

illegal and unjustified as alleged?

. .OPP.

(2) If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what relief the petitioner is entitled to?. .OPP.

(3) Whether there is no relationship of master and servant between the petitioner and

respondents as alleged?

. .OPR.

(4) Whether there exists no cause of action against respondents as alleged?

. .OPR.

(5) Relief.

7.

I have heard the AR for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and also

gone through the record of the case carefully.

8056

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

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 : Yes

Issue No. 2 : Entitled for reinstatement with seniority and continuity but without back

wages.

Issue No. 3 : No

Issue No. 4 : No

Relief :

Reference answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents

per operative part of award.

Reasons for findings

Issues Nos. 1, 3 & 4 :

9.

Being interlinked and correlated all these issues are taken up together for discussion

and decision.

10. The AR for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had completed 240 days in each

calendar year and his services had been terminated by the respondents illegally without complying

with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. He also contended the juniors to the petitioner are

still working with the respondents and fresh hands have been engaged in violation of the provisions

of sections 25-G & 25-H of the Act.

11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner

was never in the employment of respondents at any point of time and as such the question of

termination of his service does not arise at all.

12. To prove his case, the petitioner stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and deposed

that initially he was engaged in the month of March 2010 on construction work and thereafter

during the month of March 2011 he was employed as security guard on permanent basis but his

services were terminated on 26-3-2013 by the administrator of the school and activity centre and

then he raised the demand notice and conciliation proceedings were held on 15-7-2013 and his

services were re-instated but he was not posted as security guard and deployed on construction

work and his services were again terminated on 10-3-2014 without issuing any notice or any

compensation. He further stated that he had completed 240 days in every calendar year and also in

preceding 12 months. He also stated that new security guard was employed after his termination

and Bal Bharti Public School and Bal Bharti Active Centre is one and the same establishment. In

cross-examination, he admitted that letter Ex. RX has been signed by him at point A encircled in

red. He denied that he was not the employee of Bal Bharti Public School and he was employee of

Bal Bharti Activity Centre. He admitted that letter Ex. RX-1 has also been signed by him at point

A. He further denied that he was not the employee of respondents No.1 & 2. He also denied that he

was never terminated by the respondents.

13. On the other hand respondent No.1 examined one Ms. Raksha, senior teacher-cum-

coordinator of respondent No.1 school as RW-1 who tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex. RW-

1/A wherein she reiterated almost all the averments as made in the reply. She also tendered in

evidence authority letter Ex. RW-1/B, copy of attendance register w.e.f. Feb. 2012 to May, 2014

8057

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

Ex. RW-1/C and salary statement of all the employees of Bal Bharti Public School Ex. RW-1/D. In

cross-examination, she denied that the activity centre is being run in the school building. She

further denied that the non-teaching staff of activity centre and school is the same. She denied that

in the year 2012 the work of peon/chowkidar was being taken from the petitioner. She also denied

that she is the co-ordinator of activity centre. She denied that the petitioner was working in the

activity centre as well as in the school.

14. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 examined one Shri Akhilesh, Lab. Attendant,

as RW-2 who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. RW-2/A wherein he reiterated almost all the

averments as made in the reply. He also tendered in evidence authority letter Ex. RW-1/B. In cross-

examination, he denied that the respondent No. 2 management is running various schools

throughout India. He further denied that the managing committee of Bal Bharti School at Solan and

Delhi is the same.

15. I have closely scrutinized the entire evidence on record of the case and after the closure

scrutiny thereof, the first question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether

there is no relationship of master and servant between the petitioner and respondents. The case of

the petitioner is that he was engaged at the first instance during the month of March 2010 on

construction work and thereafter he was engaged as security guard during the month of March 2011

but his services were terminated on 26-3-2013 by the Administrator of the School and Activity

Centre but after raising the demand notice, the conciliation proceedings were held on 15-7-2013

and he was reinstated in service, however, he was not engaged as security guard but was engaged

on construction work and thereafter again his services were terminated on 10-3-2014. On the other

hand the case of the respondents is that the petitioner was never employed by them, hence, the

question of termination of his services did not arise. In the reply of respondent No.1 it has been

averred that the petitioner was the employee of Bal Bharti Activity Centre which a separate and

distinct entity. Therefore, the burden was upon the respondent No. 1 to prove by leading cogent and

satisfactory evidence on record that Bal Bharti Activity Centre is a separate and distinct entity.

However, except for the bald statement of RW-1, there is no other evidence on record to suggest

that Bal Bharti Activity Centre is a separate and distinct legal entity. The respondent No. 1 was

under an obligation to prove by placing on record documentary evidence in order to show that Bal

Bharti Activity Centre is separate and distinct entity. However, no document has been placed on

record to this effect by the respondent No.1. RW-1 admitted in cross-examination that the

registration of the School and Activity Centre is with the Child Education Society but she could not

produce the registration certificate before this Court. In the absence of any other satisfactory on

record no benefit can be derived by respondent No.1 from the attendance register Ex. RW-1/C and

salary statement Ex. RW-1/D. The respondent No. 2 Principal did not appear himself in the witness

box and he had only authorized the Lab-Attendant to depose before this Court who appeared in the

witness box as RW-2. The cross-examination of RW-2 shows that he is not aware about the Rules

and Regulations of the Managing Committee. He even is not aware as to whether there is an

Activity Centre at Bal Bharti School Solan. He is also not aware about the financial control of Bal

Bharti School. From the cross-examination of RW-2 it is quite clear that the RW-2 is not aware

about the management and affairs of the respondents. As observed earlier, since the principal has

failed to appear in the witness box, therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn against

respondent No. 2. It is a settled law that obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation made

by a party is upon the party making the allegation. The test would be as to who would fail if no

evidence is led. The party making the allegation and seeking the redressal must seek an opportunity

to lead evidence. However, the respondents have failed to produce any concrete material before this

Court in order to substantiate their allegation that there is no master and servant relationship

between the petitioner and respondents and that Bal Bharti Activity Centre is a different and

separate legal entity. Hence, in the absence of any cogent and satisfactory evidence on record it

cannot be said that the petitioner was not the employee of respondents.

8058

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

16. From the perusal of record, it is clear that the petitioner was engaged by the

respondents during the month of March 2010 on construction work and w.e.f. March 2011 he was

engaged as security guard and he worked as such till 26-3-2013 and thereafter he was terminated

from service and after conciliation proceedings he was reinstated and deployed on construction

work and had worked till 10-3-2014 when his services were again terminated. Therefore, it is clear

that the petitioner had completed more than 240 days in twelve calendar months preceding his

termination. It is further clear from the record that neither any notice as prescribed under section

25-F of the Act was served upon the petitioner nor he was paid compensation in lieu thereof.

Therefore, before terminating the services of the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the respondents

to have complied with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act which lay down certain conditions

precedent to the retrenchment of a workman (workmen) and requires the employer to comply with

those conditions as per clauses (a) to (c) which are mandatory in nature. However, in the present

case, the perusal of the record shows that the respondents have failed to comply with the provisions

of section 25-F of the Act. In (2015) 4 SCC 544, Mackinnon Mackenzie and Company Ltd., Vs.

Mackinnon Employees Union, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:

“34. ………………….The Industrial Court after examining the facts and evidence on

record has rightly answered the question of breach of Section 25F clause (b) in the

negative since no evidence has been produced by the respondent-Union to prove the

same and further no calculation is brought to our notice as to the amount received by

way of retrenchment compensation and also the actual amount sought to have been

paid to the retrenched workmen. Further, with regard to the provision of Section 25F

clause (c), the appellant-Company has not been able to produce cogent evidence that

notice in the prescribed manner has been served by it to the State Government prior

to the retrenchment of the concerned workmen. Therefore, we have to hold that the

appellant-Company has not complied with the conditions precedent to retrenchment

as per Section 25F clauses (a) and (c) of the I.D. Act which are mandatory in law.”

17. In the present case also as observed aforesaid, the respondents have failed to comply

with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act before terminating the services of the petitioner.

Hence, In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra) and my foregoing

observations, I have no hesitation in holding that the termination of the services of the petitioner

w.e.f. 10-3-2014 by the respondents without complying with the provisions of section 25-F of the

Act, is illegal and unjustified. Accordingly, all these issues are decided in favour of the petitioner

and against the respondents.

Issue No. 2 :

18. Since, I have held under issue No.1 above that the termination of the services of the

petitioner by the respondents w.e.f. 10.3.2014 is illegal and unjustified, hence, the petitioner is held

entitled to reinstatement in service with seniority and continuity.

19. Now, the question which arises for consideration, before this Court is as to whether the

petitioner is entitled to full back wages as contended by the AR for the petitioner. In (2009) 1 SCC

20, Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Limited Vs. Shamim Mirza, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has held that once the order of termination of services of an employee is set-aside, ordinarily,

the relief of reinstatement is available to him. However, the entitlement of an employee to get

reinstated does not necessarily result in payment of full or partial backwages, which is independent

of reinstatement. It has further been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2010 (1) SLJ S.C 70,

M/s Ritu Marbals Vs. Prabhakant Shukla that full back wages cannot be granted mechanically,

upon an order of termination be declared illegal. It is further held that reinstatement must not be

accompanied by payment of full back wages even for the period when the workman remained out

of service and contributed little or nothing to the Industry.

8059

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

20. Moreover, the petitioner was under an obligation to prove by leading cogent evidence

that he was not gainfully employed after the dismissal of his services. The initial burden is on the

workman/employee to show that he was not gainfully employed as held by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 363 titled as Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and

another Vs. S.C Sharma that :

“16…………..When, the question of determining the entitlement of a person to back-wages

is concerned, the employee has to show that he was not gainfully employed. The initial

burden is on him. After and if he places materials in that regard, the employer can bring on

record materials to rebut the claim…………..”

21. In the present case except for the bald statement of petitioner, there is no satisfactory

evidence on record to suggest that the petitioner was not gainfully employed after his termination.

The petitioner has failed to discharge his burden by placing any concrete material on record that he

was not gainfully employed after his termination. Therefore, in view of the entire evidence, on

record, coupled with the rulings (supra), I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner is not

entitled to any back-wages. Accordingly, issue No. 2 is partly decided in favour of the petitioner

and against the respondents.

Relief :

As a sequel to my above discussion and findings on issues No.1 to 4, the claim of the

petitioner succeeds and is hereby partly allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be reinstated in

service forthwith with seniority and continuity. However the petitioner is not entitled to back

wages. The reference stands answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. Let a

copy of this order/award be sent to the appropriate government for publication in the official

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

Announced in the open Court today on this 7th day of August, 2018.

Sd/-

(SUSHIL KUKREJA)

Presiding Judge,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla.

__________

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA-171001

NOTIFICATION

Shimla, the 18th January, 2019

No. HHC/Admn.6 (23)/74-XVI.—Hon’ble the Chief Justice in exercise of the powers

vested in him under Rule 2 (32) of Chapter 1 of H. P. Financial Rules, 2009 has been pleased to

declare Civil Judge-cum-JMIC, Dalhousie, H. P. as Drawing and Disbursing Officer, in respect of

the Courts of District and Sessions Judge, Chamba, Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Chamba, Senior Civil Judge-cum-CJM, Chamba and Civil Judge-cum-JMIC, Chamba and also the

Controlling Officer for the purpose of salary, T. A. etc. in respect of establishments attached to the

aforesaid Courts w.e.f. 4-2-2019 to 16-2-2019.

By order,

Sd/-

Registrar General.

8060

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA-171001

NOTIFICATION

Shimla, the 18th January, 2019

No. HHC/Admn.6 (23)/74-XVI.—Hon’ble the Chief Justice in exercise of the powers

vested in him under Rule 2 (32) of Chapter 1 of H. P. Financial Rules, 2009 has been pleased to

declare Sr. Civil Judge-cum-CJM, L&S at Kullu, H. P. as Drawing and Disbursing Officer, in

respect of the Courts of District and Sessions Judge, Kullu & Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Kullu and also the Controlling Officer for the purpose of salary, T. A. etc. in respect of

establishments attached to the aforesaid Courts w.e.f. 27-1-2019 to 2-2-2019.

By order,

Sd/-

Registrar General.

________

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA – 171001

NOTIFICATION

Shimla, the 18th January, 2019

No. HHC/Admn.6 (23)/74-XVI.—Hon’ble the Chief Justice in exercise of the powers

vested in him under Rule 2 (32) of Chapter 1 of H.P. Financial Rules, 2009 has been pleased

to declare Sr. Civil Judge-cum-CJM, Kullu, H.P. as Drawing and Disbursing Officer, in respect of

the Courts of District and Sessions Judge, Kullu & Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kullu

and also the Controlling Officer for the purpose of salary, T.A. etc. in respect of establishments

attached to the aforesaid Courts w.e.f. 4-2-2019 to 12-2-2019.

By order,

Sd/

Registrar General.

_________

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA–171001

NOTIFICATION

Shimla, the 15th January, 2019

No. HHC/Admn.6 (23)/74-XVI.—Hon’ble the Chief Justice in exercise of the powers

vested in him under Rule 2 (32) of Chapter 1 of H.P. Financial Rules, 2009 has been pleased to

declare Sr. Civil Judge-cum-CJM, Bilaspur, H.P. as Drawing and Disbursing Officer, in respect of

the Court of Civil Judge-cum-JMIC, Bilaspur, H.P. and also the Controlling Officer for the

purpose of salary, T.A. etc. in respect of establishment attached to the aforesaid Court during

earned leave period of Ms. Monika Sombal, Civil Judge-cum-JMIC, Bilaspur, H.P. w.e.f.

8061

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

18-2-2019 to 20-3-2019 with permission to prefix winter vacation and Sunday falling w.e.f.

3-2-2019 to 17-2-2019 and to suffix Gazetted holiday falling on 21-3-2019 or till she returns from

leave.

By order,

Sd/

Registrar General.

_________

vkcdkjh ,oa djk/kku foHkkx

'kqfqf)i=

f”keyk&2] 2 Qjojh] 2019

la[;k%bZ-,Dl-,u-&ch-¼1½&3@2018-&&jkti=] fgekpy izns'k esa la[;k% bZ-,Dl-,u-&,Q-¼10½&

13@2017 rkjh[k 27 twu] 2017 ds rgr i`"B 2830 ij rkjh[k 29 twu] 2017 dks izdkf'kr vf/klwpuk esa

fgekpy izns'k eky vkSj lsok dj fu;e] 2017 ds fu;e 26 ds mi fu;e ¼1½ esa vk, 'kCn] ÞcksMZÞ ds LFkku

ij Þvk;qDrÞ 'kCn i<+k tk,A

vkns'k }kjk]

txnh'k pUnz 'kekZ]

iz/kku lfpo ¼vkcdkjh ,o djk/kku½A

&&&&&&&&

EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT

CORRIGENDUM

Shimla-2, the 2nd February, 2019

No. EXN-B(1)-3/2018.—In the notification No. EXN-F(10)-13/2017, dated the 27th June,

2017, published in the Gazette of Himachal Pradesh on 29th June, 2017, at page No. 2905 in rule

sub-rule (1) of Rule 26 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, for the

word “Board” read the word “Commissioner”.

2.

In the notification No. 10/2017-STATE TAX, dated the 30th June, 2017,

published in the Gazette of Himachal Pradesh, vide number EXN-F(10)-14/2017, dated the

30th June, 2017, at page No. 3023:

(i)

before the words “The grounds of appeal”, for the signs and figure “(1)” read the

sign and figure “(2)”

(ii) before the words “A certified copy of the decision”, for the signs and figure “(2)”

read the figure and sign “(3)”.

By order,

JAGDISH CHANDER SHARMA,

Principal Secretary (E&T).

8062

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

c vnkyr rglhynkj ,oa dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0

nk;j frfFk % 16&01&2019

dsl ua0 % 07&MT@19

rkjh[k is'kh % 18&02&2019

1- jkts'k dqekj iq= Jh nq;ksZ/ku Bkdqj] fuoklh xkao 'kkfgVk] Mkd?kj dlyknh] rglhy HkqUrj]

ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0A

2- Jherh iwtk Bkdqj iq=h Jh Nis jke] fuoklh xkao ouk'kk] Mkd?kj dlyknh] rglhy HkqUrj]

ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0A

cuke

loZlk/kkj.k ,oa vke turk

fo"k;-&&izkFkZuk&i= tsj /kkjk 5¼4½ fg0 iz0 jftLVªhdj.k fu;e 2004 fookg iathdj.k ckjsA

mijksDr ekeyk esa izkFkhZx.k mijksDr us fnukad 16&01&2019 dks bl vnkyr esa izkFkZuk&i= e;

'kiFk is'k fd;k gS fd mUgksaus fnukad 15&05&2016 dks 'kknh dj yh gS vkSj rc ls nksuksas ifr&iRuh ds

:i esa jgrs pys vk jgs gSaA ijUrq izkFkhZx.k us viuh 'kknh dk bUnzkt lEcfU/kr xzke iapk;r ih.kh] rglhy

HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0 esa ntZ ugha djok;k gSA

vr% loZlk/kkj.k o vke turk dks bl b'rgkj }kjk lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks

mijksDr izkFkhZx.kksa dh 'kknh ls lEcfU/kr iapk;r ds vfHkys[k esa ntZ djus ckjs ,rjkt gks rks og fnukad

18&02&2019 dks lqcg 10-00 cts ;k blls iwoZ vlkyru ;k odkyru gkftj vnkyr is'k gksdj viuk

,rjkt is'k dj ldrk gSA blds mijkUr dksbZ Hkh ,rjkt izkIr u gksus dh lwjr esa fu;ekuqlkj 'kknh ntZ

djus ds vkns'k lEcfU/kr xzke iapk;r dks ikfjr dj fn, tk,axsA

vkt fnukad 17&01&2019 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr }kjk tkjh gqvkA

eksgjA

gLrk{kfjr@&

dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh ,oa rglhynkj]

HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0A

&&&&&&&&&

c vnkyr rglhynkj ,oa dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0

nk;j frfFk % 16&01&2019

dsl ua0 % 06&MT@19

rkjh[k is'kh % 18&02&2019

1- rksr jke iq= Jh nquh pUn] fuoklh xkao eksjt] Mkd?kj dlyknh] rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk

dqYyw] fg0 iz0A

8063

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

2- Jherh 'khyk nsoh iq=h Jh pUnze.kh] fuoklh xkao Nk'kuh] Mkd?kj HkzS.k] rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk

dqYyw] fg0 iz0A

cuke

loZlk/kkj.k ,oa vke turk

fo"k;-&&izkFkZuk&i= tsj /kkjk 5¼4½ fg0 iz0 jftLVªhdj.k fu;e 2004 fookg iathdj.k ckjsA

mijksDr ekeyk esa izkFkhZx.k mijksDr us fnukad 16&01&2019 dks bl vnkyr esa izkFkZuk&i= e;

'kiFk is'k fd;k gS fd mUgksaus fnukad 14&02&2015 dks 'kknh dj yh gS vkSj rc ls nksuksas ifr&iRuh ds

:i esa jgrs pys vk jgs gSaA ijUrq izkFkhZx.k us viuh 'kknh dk bUnzkt lEcfU/kr xzke iapk;r ih.kh] rglhy

HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0 esa ntZ ugha djok;k gSA

vr% loZlk/kkj.k o vke turk dks bl b'rgkj }kjk lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks

mijksDr izkFkhZx.kksa dh 'kknh ls lEcfU/kr iapk;r ds vfHkys[k esa ntZ djus ckjs ,rjkt gks rks og fnukad

18&02&2019 dks lqcg 10-00 cts ;k blls iwoZ vlkyru ;k odkyru gkftj vnkyr is'k gksdj viuk

,rjkt is'k dj ldrk gSA blds mijkUr dksbZ Hkh ,rjkt izkIr u gksus dh lwjr esa fu;ekuqlkj 'kknh ntZ

djus ds vkns'k lEcfU/kr xzke iapk;r dks ikfjr dj fn, tk,axsA

vkt fnukad 17&01&2019 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr }kjk tkjh gqvkA

eksgjA

gLrk{kfjr@&

dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh ,oa rglhynkj]

HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0A

&&&&&&&&

c vnkyr rglhynkj ,oa dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0

nk;j frfFk % 19&12&2018

dsl ua0 % 05&MT@19

rkjh[k is'kh % 18&02&2019

1- lrh'k ijk'kj iq= Jh izdk'k pUn] fuoklh xkao o Mkd?kj fiiykvkxs] rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk

dqYyw] fg0 iz0A

2- Jherh eSuk 'kekZ iq=h Jh gjuke flag] fuoklh xkao VdjsM+] Mkd?kj cjk/kk] rglhy HkqUrj]

ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0A

cuke

loZlk/kkj.k ,oa vke turk

fo"k;-&&izkFkZuk&i= tsj /kkjk 5¼4½ fg0 iz0 jftLVªhdj.k fu;e 2004 fookg iathdj.k ckjsA

mijksDr ekeyk esa izkFkhZx.k mijksDr us fnukad 19&12&2018 dks bl vnkyr esa izkFkZuk&i= e;

'kiFk is'k fd;k gS fd mUgksaus fnukad 30&04&2013 dks 'kknh dj yh gS vkSj rc ls nksuksas ifr&iRuh ds

8064

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

:i esa jgrs pys vk jgs gSaA ijUrq izkFkhZx.k us viuh 'kknh dk bUnzkt lEcfU/kr xzke iapk;r HkwbZ.k]

rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0 esa ntZ ugha djok;k gSA

vr% loZlk/kkj.k o vke turk dks bl b'rgkj }kjk lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks

mijksDr izkFkhZx.kksa dh 'kknh ls lEcfU/kr iapk;r ds vfHkys[k esa ntZ djus ckjs ,rjkt gks rks og fnukad

18&02&2019 dks lqcg 10-00 cts ;k blls iwoZ vlkyru ;k odkyru gkftj vnkyr is'k gksdj viuk

,rjkt is'k dj ldrk gSA blds mijkUr dksbZ Hkh ,rjkt izkIr u gksus dh lwjr esa fu;ekuqlkj 'kknh ntZ

djus ds vkns'k lEcfU/kr xzke iapk;r dks ikfjr dj fn, tk,axsA

vkt fnukad 17&01&2019 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr }kjk tkjh gqvkA

eksgjA

gLrk{kfjr@&

dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh ,oa rglhynkj]

HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0A

&&&&&&&&

c vnkyr rglhynkj ,oa dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0

nk;j frfFk % 31&12&2018

dsl ua0 % 04&MT@19

rkjh[k is'kh % 18&02&2019

1- nsoh flag iq= Jh fuf/k flag] fuoklh xkao lhl] Mkd?kj Bsyk] rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw]

fg0 iz0A

2- Jherh :i nklh iq=h Jh esgj flag] fuoklh xkao pykgk Mkd?kj 'kkyax] rglhy HkqUrj]

ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0A

cuke

loZlk/kkj.k ,oa vke turk

fo"k;-&&izkFkZuk i= tsj /kkjk 5¼4½ fg0 iz0 jftLVªhdj.k fu;e 2004 fookg iathdj.k ckjsA

mijksDr ekeyk esa izkFkhZx.k mijksDr us fnukad 31&12&2018 dks bl vnkyr esa izkFkZuk&i= e;

'kiFk is'k fd;k gS fd mUgksaus fnukad 21&04&2015 dks 'kknh dj yh gS vkSj rc ls nksuksas ifr&iRuh ds

:i esa jgrs pys vk jgs gSaA ijUrq izkFkhZx.k us viuh 'kknh dk bUnzkt lEcfU/kr xzke iapk;r T;s"Bk]

rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0 esa ntZ ugha djok;k gSA

vr% loZlk/kkj.k o vke turk dks bl b'rgkj }kjk lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks

mijksDr izkFkhZx.kksa dh 'kknh ls lEcfU/kr iapk;r ds vfHkys[k esa ntZ djus ckjs ,rjkt gks rks og fnukad

18&02&2019 dks lqcg 10-00 cts ;k blls iwoZ vlkyru ;k odkyru gkftj vnkyr is'k gksdj viuk

,rjkt is'k dj ldrk gSA blds mijkUr dksbZ Hkh ,rjkt izkIr u gksus dh lwjr esa fu;ekuqlkj 'kknh ntZ

djus ds vkns'k lEcfU/kr xzke iapk;r dks ikfjr dj fn, tk,axsA

8065

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

vkt fnukad 17&01&2019 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr }kjk tkjh gqvkA

eksgjA

gLrk{kfjr@&

dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh ,oa rglhynkj]

HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0A

&&&&&&&&

c vnkyr rglhynkj ,oa dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0

nk;j frfFk % 22&12&2018

dsl ua0 % 03&MT@19

rkjh[k is'kh % 18&02&2019

1- jger vyh iq= Jh cjdr vyh] fuoklh xkao o Mkd?kj gqjyk] rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw]

fg0 iz0A

2- Jherh utek iq=h Jh vCnqy flrkj] fuoklh xkao QyVuky] Mkd?kj ctkSjk] rglhy HkqUrj]

ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0A

cuke

loZlk/kkj.k ,oa vke turk

fo"k;-&&izkFkZuk&i= tsj /kkjk 5¼4½ fg0 iz0 jftLVªhdj.k fu;e 2004 fookg iathdj.k ckjsA

mijksDr ekeyk esa izkFkhZx.k mijksDr us fnukad 22&12&2018 dks bl vnkyr esa izkFkZuk&i= e;

'kiFk is'k fd;k gS fd mUgksaus fnukad 15&12&2016 dks 'kknh dj yh gS vkSj rc ls nksuksas ifr&iRuh ds

:i esa jgrs pys vk jgs gSaA ijUrq izkFkhZx.k us viuh 'kknh dk bUnzkt lEcfU/kr xzke iapk;r gqjyk]

rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0 esa ntZ ugha djok;k gSA

vr% loZlk/kkj.k o vke turk dks bl b'rgkj }kjk lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks

mijksDr izkFkhZx.kksa dh 'kknh ls lEcfU/kr iapk;r ds vfHkys[k esa ntZ djus ckjs ,rjkt gks rks og fnukad

18&02&2019 dks lqcg 10-00 cts ;k blls iwoZ vlkyru ;k odkyru gkftj vnkyr is'k gksdj viuk

,rjkt is'k dj ldrk gSA blds mijkUr dksbZ Hkh ,rjkt izkIr u gksus dh lwjr esa fu;ekuqlkj 'kknh ntZ

djus ds vkns'k lEcfU/kr xzke iapk;r dks ikfjr dj fn, tk,axsA

vkt fnukad 17&01&2019 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr }kjk tkjh gqvkA

eksgjA

gLrk{kfjr@&

dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh ,oa rglhynkj]

HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0A

8066

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

c vnkyr rglhynkj ,oa dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0

nk;j frfFk % 21&12&2018

dsl ua0 % 02&MT@19

rkjh[k is'kh % 18&02&2019

1- lsl jke iq= Jh deZ nkl] fuoklh xkao f'kYgk Mkd?kj cj'kS.kh] rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw]

fg0 iz0A

2- Jherh pkanuh iq=h Jh d`".k pUn] fuoklh xkao xzkg.k] Mkd?kj dlksy] rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk

dqYyw] fg0 iz0A

cuke

loZlk/kkj.k ,oa vke turk

fo"k;-&&izkFkZuk&i= tsj /kkjk 5¼4½ fg0 iz0 jftLVªhdj.k fu;e 2004 fookg iathdj.k ckjsA

mijksDr ekeyk esa izkFkhZx.k mijksDr us fnukad 21&12&2018 dks bl vnkyr esa izkFkZuk&i= e;

'kiFk is'k fd;k gS fd mUgksaus fnukad 05&05&2017 dks 'kknh dj yh gS vkSj rc ls nksuksas ifr&iRuh ds

:i esa jgrs pys vk jgs gSaA ijUrq izkFkhZx.k us viuh 'kknh dk bUnzkt lEcfU/kr xzke iapk;r cj'kS.kh]

rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0 esa ntZ ugha djok;k gSA

vr% loZlk/kkj.k o vke turk dks bl b'rgkj }kjk lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks

mijksDr izkFkhZx.kksa dh 'kknh ls lEcfU/kr iapk;r ds vfHkys[k esa ntZ djus ckjs ,rjkt gks rks og fnukad

18&02&2019 dks lqcg 10-00 cts ;k blls iwoZ vlkyru ;k odkyru gkftj vnkyr is'k gksdj viuk

,rjkt is'k dj ldrk gSA blds mijkUr dksbZ Hkh ,rjkt izkIr u gksus dh lwjr esa fu;ekuqlkj 'kknh ntZ

djus ds vkns'k lEcfU/kr xzke iapk;r dks ikfjr dj fn, tk,axsA

vkt fnukad 17&01&2019 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr }kjk tkjh gqvkA

eksgjA

gLrk{kfjr@&

dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh ,oa rglhynkj]

HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0A

&&&&&&&&

c vnkyr Jh vfuy dqekj] rglhynkj ,oa dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] dqYyw]

ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0

dsl ua0 % 02&ME@T@2019

fnukad % 18&01&2019

1- Jh iadt 'kekZ iq= Jh fot; dqekj 'kekZ] edku ua0 25] okMZ ua0 1] v[kkM+k cktkj] rglhy

o ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0A

2- Jherh Hkqous'ojh 'kekZ iq=h Jh uwi jke 'kekZ] xkao pkSax] Mkd?kj tyqxzka] rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk

dqYyw] fg0 iz0

- - izkFkhZx.kA

8067

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

cuke

vke turk

- - izfroknhx.kA

fo"k;-&&izkFkZuk&i= tsj /kkjk 5¼4½ fg0 iz0 jftLVªhdj.k fu;e 2004 fookg iathdj.k ckjsA

mijksDr ekeyk esa izkFkhZx.k mijksDr us fnukad 24&11&2018 dks bl vnkyr esa izkFkZuk&i= is'k

fd;k gS fd mUgksaus fnukad 01&12&2016 dks fgUnw jhfr fjokt ds vuqlkj LFkku xkao pkSax esa 'kknh dj yh

gS vkSj rc ls ifr&iRuh ds :i esa jgrs pys vk jgs gSaA ijUrq izkFkhZx.k }kjk viuh 'kknh dk bUnzkt

lEcfU/kr iapk;r esa ugha djok;k gSA

vr% loZlk/kkj.k dks o lxs&lEcfU/k;ksa dks bl b'rgkj }kjk lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd fdlh Hkh

O;fDr dks mijksDr izkFkhZx.kksa dh 'kknh ls lEcfU/kr iapk;r ds vfHkys[k esa ntZ djus ckjs dksbZ mtj o

,rjkt gks rks og fnukad 18&02&2019 dks lqcg 10-00 cts ;k blls iwoZ vlkyru ;k odkyru gkftj

vnkyr is'k gksdj viuk mtj@,rjkt is'k dj ldrk gSA blds mijkUr dksbZ Hkh ,rjkt izkIr u gksus

dh lwjr esa fu;ekuqlkj 'kknh ntZ djus ds vkns'k ikfjr dj fn, tk,axsA

vkt fnukad 18&01&2019 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr }kjk tkjh gqvkA

eksgjA

gLrk{kfjr@&

dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh ,oa rglhynkj]

dqYyw] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0A

&&&&&&&&

c vnkyr Jh vfuy dqekj] rglhynkj ,oa dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] dqYyw]

ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0

dsl ua0 % 03&ME@T@2019

fnukad % 18&01&2019

1- Jh fdj.k izdk'k iq= Jh iqus jke] xkao ijHkh] Mkd?kj f'kjM] rglhy o ftyk dqYyw]

fg0 iz0A

2- Jherh 'khyk iq=h Jh csyh jke] xkao Mephu] Mkd?kj Qksty] rglhy o ftyk dqYyw]

fg0 iz0

- - izkFkhZx.kA

cuke

vke turk

- - izfroknhx.kA

fo"k;-&&izkFkZuk&i= tsj /kkjk 5¼4½ fg0 iz0 jftLVªhdj.k fu;e 2004 fookg iathdj.k ckjsA

mijksDr ekeyk esa izkFkhZx.k mijksDr us fnukad 16&01&2019 dks bl vnkyr esa izkFkZuk&i= is'k

fd;k gS fd mUgksaus fnukad 10&11&2013 dks fgUnw jhfr fjokt ds vuqlkj LFkku Xkao Mephu esa 'kknh dj

yh gS vkSj rc ls ifr&iRuh ds :i esa jgrs pys vk jgs gSaA ijUrq izkFkhZx.k }kjk viuh 'kknh dk bUnzkt

lEcfU/kr iapk;r esa ugha djok;k gSA

8068

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

vr% loZlk/kkj.k dks o lxs&lEcfU/k;ksa dks bl b'rgkj }kjk lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd fdlh Hkh

O;fDr dks mijksDr izkFkhZx.kksa dh 'kknh ls lEcfU/kr iapk;r ds vfHkys[k esa ntZ djus ckjs dksbZ mtj o

,rjkt gks rks og fnukad 18&02&2019 dks lqcg 10-00 cts ;k blls iwoZ vlkyru ;k odkyru gkftj

vnkyr is'k gksdj viuk mtj@,rjkt is'k dj ldrk gSA blds mijkUr dksbZ Hkh ,rjkt izkIr u gksus

dh lwjr esa fu;ekuqlkj 'kknh ntZ djus ds vkns'k ikfjr dj fn, tk,axsA

vkt fnukad 18&01&2019 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr }kjk tkjh gqvkA

eksgjA

gLrk{kfjr@&

dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh ,oa rglhynkj]

dqYyw] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0A

&&&&&&&&

c vnkyr Jh vfuy dqekj] rglhynkj ,oa dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] dqYyw]

ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0

dsl ua0 % 04&ME@T@2019

fnukad % 18&01&2019

1- Jh lehj xqIrk iq= Jh tksfxUnz iky xqIrk] xkao [kkjdh csgM+] Mkd?kj dVjkbZ] rglhy o

ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0A

2- Jherh izfrHkk iq=h Jh larks"k] xkao o Mkd?kj djkM+lw] rglhy o ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0

- -izkFkhZx.kA

cuke

vke turk

- - izfroknhx.kA

fo"k;-&&izkFkZuk&i= tsj /kkjk 5¼4½ fg0 iz0 jftLVªhdj.k fu;e 2004 fookg iathdj.k ckjsA

mijksDr ekeyk esa izkFkhZx.k mijksDr us fnukad 16&01&2019 dks bl vnkyr esa izkFkZuk&i= is'k

fd;k gS fd mUgksaus fnukad 07&11&2016 dks fgUnw jhfr fjokt ds vuqlkj LFkku djkM+lw esa 'kknh dj yh

gS vkSj rc ls ifr&iRuh ds :i esa jgrs pys vk jgs gSaA ijUrq izkFkhZx.k }kjk viuh 'kknh dk bUnzkt

lEcfU/kr iapk;r esa ugha djok;k gSA

vr% loZlk/kkj.k dks o lxs&lEcfU/k;ksa dks bl b'rgkj }kjk lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd fdlh Hkh

O;fDr dks mijksDr izkFkhZx.kksa dh 'kknh ls lEcfU/kr iapk;r ds vfHkys[k esa ntZ djus ckjs dksbZ mtj o

,rjkt gks rks og fnukad 18&02&2019 dks lqcg 10-00 cts ;k blls iwoZ vlkyru ;k odkyru gkftj

vnkyr is'k gksdj viuk mtj@,rjkt is'k dj ldrk gSA blds mijkUr dksbZ Hkh ,rjkt izkIr u gksus

dh lwjr esa fu;ekuqlkj 'kknh ntZ djus ds vkns'k ikfjr dj fn, tk,axsA

vkt fnukad 18&01&2019 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr }kjk tkjh gqvkA

eksgjA

gLrk{kfjr@&

dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh ,oa rglhynkj]

dqYyw] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0A

8069

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

c vnkyr Jh vfuy dqekj] rglhynkj ,oa dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] dqYyw]

ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0

dsl ua0 % 05&ME@T@2019

fnukad % 18&01&2019

1- Jh rkjk pUn iq= Jh Hkxr jke] fuoklh xkao ekBh f'kYg] Mkd?kj f'kjM+] rglhy o ftyk

dqYyw] fg0 iz0A

2- Jherh ljLorh iq=h Jh lsl jke] fuoklh xkao ckaf'kax] Mkd?kj cosyh] rglhy o ftyk

dqYyw] fg0 iz0

- - izkFkhZx.kA

cuke

vke turk

- - izfroknhx.kA

fo"k;-&&izkFkZuk&i= tsj /kkjk 5¼4½ fg0 iz0 jftLVªhdj.k fu;e 2004 fookg iathdj.k ckjsA

mijksDr ekeyk esa izkFkhZx.k mijksDr us fnukad 16&01&2019 dks bl vnkyr esa izkFkZuk&i= is'k

fd;k gS fd mUgksaus fnukad 03&02&2017 dks fgUnw jhfr fjokt ds vuqlkj LFkku ckaf'kax esa 'kknh dj yh gS

vkSj rc ls ifr&iRuh ds :i esa jgrs pys vk jgs gSaA ijUrq izkFkhZx.k }kjk viuh 'kknh dk bUnzkt

lEcfU/kr iapk;r esa ugha djok;k gSA

vr% loZlk/kkj.k dks o lxs&lEcfU/k;ksa dks bl b'rgkj }kjk lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd fdlh Hkh

O;fDr dks mijksDr izkFkhZx.kksa dh 'kknh ls lEcfU/kr iapk;r ds vfHkys[k esa ntZ djus ckjs dksbZ mtj o

,rjkt gks rks og fnukad 18&02&2019 dks lqcg 10-00 cts ;k blls iwoZ vlkyru ;k odkyru gkftj

vnkyr is'k gksdj viuk mtj@,rjkt is'k dj ldrk gSA blds mijkUr dksbZ Hkh ,rjkt izkIr u gksus

dh lwjr esa fu;ekuqlkj 'kknh ntZ djus ds vkns'k ikfjr dj fn, tk,axsA

vkt fnukad 18&01&2019 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr }kjk tkjh gqvkA

eksgjA

gLrk{kfjr@&

dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh ,oa rglhynkj]

dqYyw] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0A

&&&&&&&&

c vnkyr rglhynkj ,oa dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0

dsl ua0 % 02&@BT@2019 nk;j frfFk % 03&11&2018

rkjh[k is'kh % 18&02&2019

Jh jsor jke iq= Jh xjhc nkl] fuoklh xkao tyqxzka] Mkd?kj tyqxzka] rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw]

fg0 iz0A

cuke

loZlk/kkj.k ,oa vke turk

8070

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

fo"k;-&&izkFkZuk&i= vf/kfu;e /kkjk 13¼3½ tUe ,oa e`R;q iathdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1969-

Jh jsor jke iq= Jh xjhc nkl] fuoklh xkao tyqxzka] Mkd?kj tyqxzka] rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw]

fg0 iz0 bl dk;kZy; esa izkFkZuk&i= e; 'kiFk&i= fn;k x;k gS fd mlds iq= jkds'k dqekj dk tUe

fnukad 05&02&2017 dks LFkku xkao tyqxzka] Mkd?kj tyqxzka] rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0 esa gqvk

gS ijUrq mlds tUe dh frfFk dk bUnzkt fdlh dkj.ko'k xzke iapk;r tyqxzka] Mkd?kj tyqxzka] rglhy

HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0 ds vfHkys[k esa ntZ u fd;k gSA

vr% bl b'rgkj gtk }kjk loZlk/kkj.k dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd fdlh O;fDr dks jkds'k

dqekj iq= Jh jsor jke tUe frfFk ntZ djokus ckjs dksbZ vkifÙk gks rks og fnukad 18&02&2019 dks lqcg

10-00 cts ;k blls iwoZ vlkyru ;k odkyru gkftj vnkyr vkdj viuk ,rjkt ntZ djok ldrk gSA

blds mijkUr dksbZ Hkh ,rjkt lek;r u gksxk rFkk fu;ekuqlkj tUe frfFk ntZ djokus ds vkns'k

lEcfU/kr xzke iapk;r dks ikfjr dj fn, tk,axsA

vkt fnukad 17&01&2019 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr }kjk tkjh gqvkA

eksgjA

gLrk{kfjr@&

dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh ,oa rglhynkj]

HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0A

&&&&&&&&

c vnkyr rglhynkj ,oa dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0

dsl ua0 % 01@BT@2019

rkjh[k is'kh % 18&02&2019

Jh yqnj pUn iq= Jh fVde jke iq= Jh Qrq] fuoklh xkao cuk'kk] Mkd?kj dlyknh] rglhy

HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0A

cuke

loZlk/kkj.k ,oa vke turk

fo"k;-&&izkFkZuk&i= vf/kfu;e /kkjk 13¼3½ tUe ,oa e`R;q iathdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1969-

Jh yqnj pUn iq= Jh fVde jke iq= Jh Qrq] fuoklh xkao cuk'kk] Mkd?kj dlyknh] rglhy

HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0 us bl dk;kZy; esa izkFkZuk&i= e; 'kiFk&i= fn;k x;k gS fd mlds firk

Lo0 Jh fVde jke iq= Qrq dh e`R;q fnukad 24&08&2016 dks LFkku xkao cuk'kk] Mkd?kj dlyknh]

rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0 esa gqbZ gS ijUrq mudh eqR;q dh frfFk dk bUnzkt fdlh dkj.ko'k xzke

iapk;r ih.kh] rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0 ds vfHkys[k esa ntZ u fd;k gSA

vr% bl b'rgkj gtk }kjk loZlk/kkj.k dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd fdlh O;fDr dks Lo0 Jh

fVde jke iq= Qrq dh e`R;q frfFk ntZ djokus ckjs dksbZ vkifÙk gks rks og fnukad 18&02&2019 dks lqcg

10-00 cts ;k blls iwoZ vlkyru ;k odkyru gkftj vnkyr vkdj viuk ,rjkt ntZ djok ldrk gSA

blds mijkUr dksbZ Hkh ,rjkt lek;r u gksxk rFkk fu;ekuqlkj e`R;q frfFk ntZ djokus ds vkns'k

lEcfU/kr xzke iapk;r dks ikfjr dj fn, tk,axsA

8071

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

vkt fnukad 17&01&2019 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr }kjk tkjh gqvkA

eksgjA

gLrk{kfjr@&

dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh ,oa rglhynkj]

HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0A

&&&&&&&&

c vnkyr rglhynkj ,oa dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh] rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0

dsl ua0 % 01@BT@2019

rkjh[k is'kh % 18&02&2019

Jh [khe pUn iq= Jh gsrq jke] fuoklh xkao euhgkj] Mkd?kj Bsyk] rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw]

fg0 iz0A

cuke

loZlk/kkj.k ,oa vke turk

fo"k;-&&izkFkZuk&i= vf/kfu;e /kkjk 13¼3½ tUe ,oa e`R;q iathdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1969-

Jh [khe pUn iq= Jh gsrq jke] fuoklh xkao euhgkj] Mkd?kj Bsyk] rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw]

fg0 iz0 us bl dk;kZy; esa izkFkZuk&i= e; 'kiFk&i= fn;k x;k gS fd mldh iq=h uhye dk tUe fnukad

29&11&2016 dks LFkku xkao euhgkj] Mkd?kj Bsyk] rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0 esa gqvk gS ijUrq

mlds tUe dh frfFk dk bUnzkt fdlh dkj.ko'k xzke iapk;r ikjyh] rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0

ds vfHkys[k esa ntZ u fd;k gSA

vr% bl b'rgkj gtk }kjk loZlk/kkj.k dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd fdlh O;fDr dks uhye iq=h

Jh [kse pUn dhs tUe frfFk ntZ djokus ckjs dksbZ vkifÙk gks rks og fnukad 18&02&2019 dks lqcg 10-00

cts ;k blls iwoZ vlkyru ;k odkyru gkftj vnkyr vkdj viuk ,rjkt ntZ djok ldrk gSA blds

mijkUr dksbZ Hkh ,rjkt lek;r u gksxk rFkk fu;ekuqlkj tUe frfFk ntZ djokus ds vkns'k lEcfU/kr xzke

iapk;r dks ikfjr dj fn, tk,axsA

vkt fnukad 17&01&2019 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr }kjk tkjh gqvkA

eksgjA

gLrk{kfjr@&

dk;Zdkjh n.Mkf/kdkjh ,oa rglhynkj]

HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0A

&&&&&&&&

c vnkyr rglhynkj ,oa lgk;d lekgrkZ izFke Js.kh] rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0

nk;j frfFk % 17&12&2018

dsl ua0 % 04@NT@2018

rkjh[k is'kh % 18&02&2019

8072

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

Jh jkt d`".k iq= Jh bUnz flag] fuoklh xkao /kkÅ.kh] Mkd?kj tyqxzka] rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw]

fg0 iz0

- - izkFkhZA

cuke

vke turk

- - izR;kFkhZA

fo"k;-&&nj[okLr cjk;s dkxtkr eky esa uke dh nq#Lrh ckjsA

Jh jkt d`".k iq= Jh bUnz flag] fuoklh xkao /kkÅ.kh] Mkd?kj tyqxzka QkVh pkSax] dksBh pkSax]

rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw fg0 iz0 }kjk fnukad 17&12&2018 dks bl vnkyr esa izkFkZuk&i= is'k fd;k

gSA okD;k QkVh pkSax] dksBh pkSax] rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0 ds jktLo fjdkMZ esa izkFkhZ dk uke

xyrh ls jkt d`".k dh txg jke d`".k ntZ gS tcfd xzke iapk;r o vU; fjdkMZ esa izkFkhZ dk uke jkt

d`".k gSA vc izkFkhZ vjkth gtk ds bUnzkt esa viuk uke jke d`".k ls nq#Lr djds jke d`".k mQZ jkt

d`".k iq= Jh bUnz flag ntZ djuk pkgrk gSA

vr% loZlk/kkj.k dks bl b'rgkj }kjk lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd fdlh O;fDr dks mijksDr izkFkhZ ds

uke dh nq#Lrh dk bUnzkt djus ckjs dksbZ ,rjkt gks rks og fnukad 18&02&2019 dks lqcg 10-00 cts

;k blls iwoZ vlkyru ;k odkyru gkftj vnkyr vkdj viuk ,rjkt ntZ djok ldrk gSA blds

mijkUr dksbZ Hkh ,rjkt lek;r u gksxk rFkk fu;ekuqlkj uke nq#Lrh dk bUnzkt djus ds vkns'k ikfjr

dj fn, tk,axsA

vkt fnukad 17&01&2019 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr }kjk tkjh gqvkA

eksgjA

gLrk{kfjr@&

rglhynkj ,oa lgk;d lekgrkZ izFke Js.kh]

rglhynkj] HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0A

&&&&&&&&

c vnkyr rglhynkj ,oa lgk;d lekgrkZ izFke Js.kh] rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0

nk;j frfFk % 04&10&2018

dsl ua0 % 03@CT@2018

rkjh[k is'kh % 18&02&2019

Jh esgj pUn iq= Jh uks[kw jke iq= Jh Mqaxpqx] fuoklh xkao 'kqjM+] Mkd?kj [kks[ku] rglhy HkqUrj]

ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0

- - izkFkhZA

cuke

vke turk

- - izR;kFkhZA

fo"k;-&&nj[okLr cjk;s dkxtkr eky esa tkfr dh nq#Lrh ckjsA

8073

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

Jh esgj pUn iq= Jh uks[kw jke iq= Jh Mqaxpqx] fuoklh xkao 'kqjM+] Mkd?kj [kks[ku] rglhy HkqUrj]

ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0 }kjk fnukad 04&10&2018 dks bl vnkyr esa izkFkZuk&i= is'k fd;k gS mldh tkfr

okD;k QkVh 'ke'kh] dksBh [kks[ku] rglhy HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0 ds jktLo fjdkMZ esa vU; ntZ gS

tcfd udy 'ktjk uLc QkVh gyk.k&I o"kZ 1989&90 rglhy o ftyk dqYyw] iVokjh Hkw&O;oLFkk egky

jk?kM+h] Hkw&O;oLFkk uk;c rglhynkj o`Ùk dqYyw] fg0 iz0 ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ dksyh tkfr ls lEcU/k j[krk gSA

vc izkFkhZ vjkth gtk ds bUnzkt esa viuh tkfr vU; ls nq#Lr djds dksyh ntZ djuk pkgrk gSA

vr% loZlk/kkj.k dks bl b'rgkj }kjk lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd fdlh O;fDr dks mijksDr izkFkhZ

dh tkfr nq#Lrh dk bUnzkt djus ckjs dksbZ ,rjkt gks rks og fnukad 18&02&2019 dks lqcg 10-00 cts

;k blls iwoZ vlkyru ;k odkyru gkftj vnkyr vkdj viuk ,rjkt ntZ djok ldrk gSA blds

mijkUr dksbZ Hkh ,rjkt lek;r u gksxk rFkk fu;ekuqlkj tkfr nq#Lrh dk bUnzkt djus ds vkns'k ikfjr

dj fn, tk,axsA

vkt fnukad 17&01&2019 dks esjs gLrk{kj o eksgj vnkyr }kjk tkjh gqvkA

eksgjA

gLrk{kfjr@&

rglhynkj ,oa lgk;d lekgrkZ izFke Js.kh]

rglhynkj] HkqUrj] ftyk dqYyw] fg0 iz0A

&&&&&&&&

In the Court of Mr. Raman Garsanghi (H.A.S.), Special Marriage Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional

Magistrate, Manali, District Kullu, H.P.

Mr. Paljor son of Sh. Lhakyab resident of Gachan, Thekhokling Buddhist Monastery, House

No. 43 Manali, P.O. and Tehsil Manali, Distt. Kullu, H.P. (INDIA).

Mrs. Tsering daughter of Sh. Marchung (presently wife of Sh. Paljor) resident of Gachan,

Thekhokling Buddhist, House No. 43 Manali, P.O. and Tehsil Manali, Distt. Kullu, H.P. (INDIA).

Versus

General Public

An application for registration of marriage under Special Marriage Act, 1954.

Whereas Mr. Paljor son of Sh. Lhakyab resident of Gachan, Thekhokling Buddhist

Monastery, House No. 43, Manali, P.O. and Tehsil Manali, Distt. Kullu, H.P. (INDIA). Mrs.

Tsering daughter of Sh. Marchung (presently wife of Sh. Paljor) resident of Gachan, Thekhokling

Buddhist, monastery House No. 43 Manali, P.O. and Tehsil Manali, Distt. Kullu, H.P. (INDIA)

has presented an application on 16-01-2019 in this court for the registration of the marriage under

Special Marriage Act, 1954. Hence this proclamation is hereby issued for the information of

general public that if any person have any objection for the registration of the above marriage can

appear in this court on 15-02-2019 at Manali to object registration of above marriage personally or

through an authorized agent failing which this marriage will be registered under the Act, 1954

accordingly.

8074

jkti=] fgekpy izns'k] 04 Qjojh] 2019@15 ek?k] 1940

Given under my hand and seal of this court on 16th day of January, 2019.

Seal.

RAMAN GARSANGHI (HAS),

Special Marriage Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate,

Manali, District Kullu (H.P.).

fu;U=d] eqnz.k rFkk ys[ku lkexzh] fgekpy izns'k] f'keyk&5 }kjk eqfnzr rFkk izdkf'kr

bysDVªkWfud gLrk{kfjr jkti=] oSclkbV http://rajpatrahimachal.nic.in ij miyC/k gS ,oe~ vkWuykbu lR;kfir fd;k tk ldrk gS