Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 737 (HP)

Vipta Nand v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-08-14

A.M.KHANWILKAR, KULDIP SINGH

body2013
JUDGEMENT A.M KHANWILKAR, J. - 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. 2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Counsel for the respondents waives notice. As short question is involved, the petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. The grievance of the petitioner is that although the petitioner has succeeded before the Labour Court in getting the order of reinstatement with effect from 23.8.2002, the authorities have not regularized services of the petitioner from that date, but from the year 2008. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had raised the dispute, as a result of which, reference was made to the Labour Court, Shimla. The reference was for adjudicating the following issue:- "Whether the termination of services of Sh.Vipta Nand, workman s/o Sh. Salig Ram by the Employer, i.e. the Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division, Sangrah, District Sirmaur, HP w.e.f. December, 1995, without complying the provisions of section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is fair and justified ?. If of not, what relief of service benefits including seniority and back wages the workman Sh. Vipta Nand is entitled to ?. 3. THE Labour Court, after considering all aspects of the matter, disposed of the reference and answered it in favour of petitioner. The operative order of the Labour Court reads thus: " In view of the above, the reference is answered in affirmative. Consequently, it is held that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement in service with effect from the date of reference, that is, 23.8.2002. As the petitioner was retrenched on 30.12.1995 and the reference was received in this Court only on 23.8.2002, the petitioner shall not be entitled for back wages keeping in view the delay in raising the dispute. Let a copy of the award be sent to appropriate government for publication in the official gazette". 4. IT is also not in dispute that the respondent-State challenged the order of reinstatement passed in favour of petitioner by way of writ petition, which came to be dismissed. As the decision of the Labour Court has attained finality, it is not open to the respondents to now take a stand which is not consistent with direction contained in paragraph-6 of the Labour Court award, reproduced hitherto. In the circumstances, we direct the respondents to regularize the petitioner with effect from 23.8.2002 and to grant . As the decision of the Labour Court has attained finality, it is not open to the respondents to now take a stand which is not consistent with direction contained in paragraph-6 of the Labour Court award, reproduced hitherto. In the circumstances, we direct the respondents to regularize the petitioner with effect from 23.8.2002 and to grant . all the consequential benefits flowing there from, including seniority and continuity in service on and from that date. Petition disposed of accordingly. 5. WE deprecate the casual manner in which the department has issued orders disregarding the directions of the Labour Court in favour of petitioner. If the matter was considered by the Departmental Litigation Committee established in consonance with the H.P. Litigation Policy, this litigation was certainly avoidable. The department should proceed against the officer concerned for generating this litigation which was avoidable. 6. COPY of this order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary for information and necessary action.