Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 727 (HP)

LEKH RAM v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-08-08

A.M.KHANWILKAR, KULDIP SINGH

body2013
JUDGEMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. - 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. 2. AS short question is involved, appeals are taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent. The order impugned in this appeal is dated 16th April, 2012, in CWP No. 4805 of 2009. That writ petition was filed by the appellant primarily to challenge the decision of the Labour Commissioner, dated 10th September, 2009. The decision of the . Labour Commissioner reads thus: "This is with reference to your demand notice and report under section 12 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 received from Labour Officer cumConciliation Officer Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in respect of your dispute with the Executive Engineer, I.&P.H. Division, Baggi, Tehsil and District Mandi, H.P. of After careful examination of the above report and your demand notice, it is found that you were working as daily waged beldar in Balh Valley Medium Irrigation Project of I.P.H. Department. Your services were terminated by the above employer on 16121994 after serving one month notice with other coworkers after obtaining prior permission of the Ld. Presiding Judge, Labour Court Shimla vide orders dated 22101994 and 25101994 that retrenchment should be done as per Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Aggrieved by this action you filed an application under section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Hon'ble Labour Court Shimla, which was finally disposed off on 03011996 against you. As per your demand notice you have also approached the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh against the affirmation of termination orders by the Labour Court but failed. You have claimed that junior workers to you whose services had been terminated with you w.e.f. 16121994 and who approached the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, have been reengaged and later on regularized by the I.P.H. Department. Since your claim against the affirmation of termination orders have already been dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court therefore, your present demand notice is not maintainable and is prima facie, vexatious and frivolous. Accordingly, you are informed as per the provisions of section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that your dispute under reference in view of above mentioned reasons is not being referred to Hon'ble Labour Court of H.P. for adjudication." 3. IN substance, the Labour Commissioner rejected the request of the appellant to make reference to the Labour Court under Section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. IN substance, the Labour Commissioner rejected the request of the appellant to make reference to the Labour Court under Section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. No more and no less. In that case, the only issue that was required to be redressed by the learned Single Judge was the justness of the said view taken by the Labour Commissioner and not the merits of the termination of the appellantworkman. That question would have become relevant if reference was to be made to the Labour Court . and only then the Labour Court would have been required to consider that issue. 4. IN our opinion, with due respect, the impugned decision is misdirected and manifestly wrong. In the circumstances, of the impugned judgment is quashed and set aside and the writ petition stands restored to the file of this Court to its original rt number to be reconsidered afresh on merits, in accordance with law. For the reasons recorded in LPA No. 155 of 2013, these appeals succeed on the same terms.