Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1563 (HP)

Dharam Dass v. HPSEB Ltd.

2014-11-03

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. The petitioner was engaged as Beldar on 26.12.1993. He was retrenched in the year 1998. He approached the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, by filing OA No. 1587 of 1998. The erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal ordered the re-engagement of the petitioner vide order dated 6.11.1998. The petitioner was re-engaged as per the orders of the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. He was conferred with work charge status, as per Annexure P-2 dated 6.11.2002 at Sr. No. 42. However, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner was not allowed to join his duties as work charge employee. 2. The petitioner was again retrenched on 13.5.2005. The petitioner raised the industrial dispute. The matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, vide reference No. 59 of 2007. The learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, held the retrenchment of the petitioner in violation to provisions of Sections 25F, 25G &H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner was ordered to be re-instated with seniority and continuity of service, but without back wages. 3. The respondents-Board, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 1.6.2010, filed CWP No. 6089 of 2010 before this Court. The same was dismissed by this Court with analogous writ petitions on 28.9.2010. The petitioner was re-engaged as Beldar on 12.11.2010 vide Annexure P- 6. He was appointed as T/Mate vide order dated 5.11.2011 (Annexure P- 7). 4. The case of the petitioner, in a nut shell, is that on the basis of Annexure P-2, order dated 6.11.2002, he should have been conferred work charge status with all consequential benefits. Mrs. Sharmila Patial, Advocate, appearing for the Board has vehemently argued that since there is break in service, the petitioner could not be conferred with work charge status w.e.f. 6.11.2002, as he was reengaged pursuant to the award dated 1.6.2010, as Beldar on 12.11.2010. 5. It is evident from Annexure P-2, letter dated 6.11.2002 that taking into consideration the seniority of the petitioner w.e.f. 26.12.1993, he was conferred with work charge status. He was not permitted to join his duties as work charge employee for the reasons best known to the respondents. The subsequent retrenchment of the petitioner dated 13.5.2005 was set aside by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, vide order dated 1.6.2010. The learned Tribunal has awarded re-instatement of the petitioner with continuity in service but without back wages. He was not permitted to join his duties as work charge employee for the reasons best known to the respondents. The subsequent retrenchment of the petitioner dated 13.5.2005 was set aside by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, vide order dated 1.6.2010. The learned Tribunal has awarded re-instatement of the petitioner with continuity in service but without back wages. The writ petition preferred against the award dated 1.6.2010 has been dismissed by this Court on 28.9.2010. The action of the respondents to re-engage the petitioner merely as Beldar on 12.11.2010 was wholly illegal, though he has been made T/Mate on 5.11.2011. However, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner should have been granted the work charge status w.e.f. 6.11.2002, vide letter Annexure P-2, with all consequential benefits by counting his previous seniority. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The petitioner would be deemed to have been appointed on work charge basis w.e.f. 6.11.2002 with all consequential benefits including promotion etc. from the date the persons junior to him have been promoted to the higher post. The consequential benefits be released to the petitioner by treating him work charge employee w.e.f. 6.11.2002, within a period of six weeks from today. 7. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.