Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1845 (HP)

Pardeep Kumar v. Cipla Ltd.

2014-12-09

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. LPA No. 378 of 2012 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 13th July, 2012, made by the Writ Court in CWP No. 2401 of 2009, titled as Cipla Ltd. & another versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners-respondents No. 1 and 2 herein came to be allowed by quashing the Labour Reference Order No. 11-2/93 (Lab) ID/07-Baddi (Annexure PJ to the writ petition) and order, dated 16.06.2009, made by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Shimla (Annexure PQ to the writ petition) (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned judgment"). 2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has questioned the impugned judgment. It appears that the writ petitioners-respondents No. 1 and 2 herein appointed the appellant as a workman on temporary basis due to temporary increase in work in terms of order, dated 6th April, 2005 (Annexure R-1 to the writ petition) for a period of six months with effect from 6th April, 2005 to 5th October, 2005. The said employment came to an end. Thereafter, the appellant moved an application, which was considered on 28th October, 2005 (Annexure PB to the writ petition) and he was directed to undergo a training for a period of two years with effect from 7th November, 2005 to 6th November, 2007. He was undergoing the training and his training period was withdrawn/ cancelled, constraining him to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The Labour Court made the order, which was questioned before the Writ Court and the Writ Court allowed the writ petition by holding that the appellant was not a workman. 3. The appellant was not in position as a workman. He has also not sought any appropriate remedy after his engagement came to an end in terms of the engagement order (Annexure R-1) (supra) and he accepted his induction as a trainee in terms of Annexure PB (supra), but joined late, was also found absent. He was not performing any job or duty as a workman, but was undergoing training as a trainee. He does not fall within the definition of "workman" as per the Labour Laws applicable. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant failed to carve out a case and to establish the relationship of the appellant and respondents No. 1 & 2 as workman and an employer. 5. He does not fall within the definition of "workman" as per the Labour Laws applicable. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant failed to carve out a case and to establish the relationship of the appellant and respondents No. 1 & 2 as workman and an employer. 5. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the appellant was not a "workman" at the relevant point of time. 6. We have gone through the impugned judgment, is well reasoned and needs no interference. 7. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is upheld and the appeal is dismissed alongwith all pending applications. LPA No. 126 of 2013 8. In view of the dismissal of LPA No. 378 of 2012, this appeal is also disposed of alongwith all pending applications.