Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1639 (HP)

Mast Ram v. H. P. State Forest Corporation

2011-03-23

RAJIV SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, in order to maintain clarity, the facts of C.W.P.(T) 9827 of 2008 have been taken into consideration. 2. Petitioner, Shri Mast Ram was appointed as unskilled worker in Himachal Government Rosin & Turpentine Factory, Bilaspur in the pay scale of `70-85/- plus usual allowances admissible under the Central Government Rules to the corresponding employees of Central Government, against a temporary post on year to year basis with effect from 01.10.1968. The appointment was purely temporary and liable to be terminated with one month’s notice on either side. The appointment was subject to the acceptance of terms and conditions. The terms and conditions find mention in memorandum dated September, 1968. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Foreman on 10.10.1972 and Head Foreman on 03.06.1985. The State Government has taken a decision to the effect that H.P. Government Rosin & Turpentine Factories at Nahan and Bilaspur shall cease to function from 31.03.1974 as Forest Department Units. The managements of these two factories were transferred to H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd. from 01.04.1974. Petitioner was served with a notice of termination on 19.03.1974. However, it was made clear in the notice dated 19.03.1974 that if the petitioner was prepared to serve under the H.P. State Forest Corporation from 01.04.1974, on the pay and allowances to be allowed by the Corporation and terms and conditions of the Corporation, he could sign his acceptance on or before 30th March, 1974 in the form appended overleaf. Petitioner opted to serve the H.P. State Forest Corporation on the terms and conditions given alongwith notice Annexure R-2. Petitioner, Shri Chet Ram was also appointed as unskilled worker on temporary basis in the Rosin and Turpentine Factory, Bilaspur in the pay scale of `70-85/- on the same terms and conditions, which were applicable to Shri Mast Ram. He has also opted to serve in the Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation, after exercising the option. 3. Mr. T.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has strenuously argued that as per the terms and conditions contained in the memorandum dated 16.10.1968 and Annexure ‘A’ appended with notice dated 19th March, 1974, his clients were to superannuate after attaining the age of 60 years. 3. Mr. T.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has strenuously argued that as per the terms and conditions contained in the memorandum dated 16.10.1968 and Annexure ‘A’ appended with notice dated 19th March, 1974, his clients were to superannuate after attaining the age of 60 years. He has relied upon notification dated 22.05.1998, whereby the age of employees, who have been serving in the Central Government, has been increased from 58 to 60 years. 4. Mr. Bhupender Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the service conditions of the petitioners were to be regulated under the Standing Orders framed by the respondent-Corporation, which came into existence w.e.f. 01.04.1974. According to him, the age of retirement as per Standing Order 32(e) was 58 years. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 6. Both the petitioners were appointed on temporary basis in the Rosin & Turpentine Factory in the pay scale of `7085/- on 1st October, 1968 and 16th October, 1968, respectively. Their appointment was temporary and was liable to be terminated with one month’s notice on either side. 7. It will be apt at this stage to reproduce the condition No. 5 of the memorandum dated September, 1968, mentioned at page No. 10 of C.W.P.(T) No. 9827 of 2008, which reads thus: “5. His appointment will be under the provision of Standing Orders (Industrial Employment Act, 1946) or any other such rules governing the Industrial Employees as per the pattern of Himachal Govt. Rosin & Turpentine Factory, Nahan, H.P.” 8. What is mentioned in Annexure A-2, dated 16.10.1968, is that the petitioners shall be entitled to usual allowances admissible under the Central Government Rules to the corresponding employees of Central Government and their appointment will be under the provision of Standing Orders (Industrial Employment Act, 1946) or any other such rules governing the Industrial Employees, as per the pattern of Himachal Government Rosin & Turpentine Factory, Nahan, H.P.. Petitioners have opted to serve in the Forest Corporation after the decision was taken by the State Government to transfer the Management of Rosin & Turpentine Factory, Bilaspur to Forest Corporation on 01.04.1974. Petitioners have opted to serve in the Forest Corporation after the decision was taken by the State Government to transfer the Management of Rosin & Turpentine Factory, Bilaspur to Forest Corporation on 01.04.1974. Petitioners were apprised of the terms and conditions of their service vide notice of termination alongwith appendix governing the transfer of the workers and supervisory staff working in H.P. Government Rosin & Turpentine Factories at Nahan and Bilaspur. The pay and allowances of Factory workers and supervisory staff were fixed by the H.P. Government as per the decision of the Railway Ministry for the workshop staff on the recommendations of Third Pay Commission. Their general terms and conditions find mention at Sr. No. 10 of Annexure ‘A’, which reads thus: “10. General Terms of Service ETC. The General terms of service, discipline, retirement, retrenchment, dismissal of the workers and supervisory staff will be governed by the labour laws and Acts and Rules made thereunder by the State and Central Govt. from time to time.” 9. The respondent-Corporation has framed the Standing Orders under Section 5(3) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Standing Order 32 deals with the other conditions. As per Standing Order 32(a), the pay and allowances of the workers and supervisory staff were to be as per orders of the Ministry of Railway issued for their workshop staff from time to time. As far as retirement age is concerned, the same is regulated as per Standing Order 32(e), i.e., 58 years. The petitioners were held entitled only to pay and allowances as per the orders of the Ministry of Railway issued for their workshop staff from time to time. The grant of pay and allowances and the date of retirement are different conditions of service. 9. Ms. T.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued that since as per notification dated 22.05.1998, the age of retirement of the Central Government employees, has been increased from 58 to 60 years and the same is to be applied mutatis mutandis to the case of the petitioners. There is no merit in this submission as per the observations made hereinabove. Petitioners were to be paid the pay and allowances as per the orders issued by the Ministry of Railway and as far as retirement age is concerned, the same is separately regulated under Standing Order 32(e), i.e., 58 years. There is no merit in this submission as per the observations made hereinabove. Petitioners were to be paid the pay and allowances as per the orders issued by the Ministry of Railway and as far as retirement age is concerned, the same is separately regulated under Standing Order 32(e), i.e., 58 years. These Standing Orders have been framed by the respondent-Corporation under Section 5(3) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Petitioners have opted to comply with the terms and conditions enclosed with the letter of option, i.e., Annexure R-2. It is also evident from Annexure A-2 that their appointment was temporary and they were only to be granted usual allowances admissible under the Central Government Rules. Their appointment, when they were serving in the Himachal Pradesh Rosin and Turpentine Factory, Bilaspur and Nahan, was to be regulated under the provision of Standing Orders of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 or any other such rules governing the Industrial Employees as per the pattern of Himachal Government Rosin & Turpentine Factory, Nahan, H.P. According to Clause-10 annexed with the copy of notice dated 19th March, 1974, the General terms of service, discipline, retirement, retrenchment, dismissal of the workers and supervisory staff was to be governed by the labour laws and Acts and Rules made thereunder by the State and Central Government from time to time. In the instant case, the conditions of service of the petitioner including retirement age, is to be regulated under the Standing Orders framed under Section 5(3) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, as noticed above, which have come into force w.e.f. 01.04.1974 in the respondent-Corporation. The petitioner Shri Mast Ram has also made representation for the redressal of his grievance. The same stood rejected on 28.11.2003. He has been apprised that the decision to retire him at the age of 58 years, has been taken as per Standing Orders framed by the respondent-Corporation. 10. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in these petitions and the same are dismissed. No costs.