Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 784 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ram Sen

2014-06-23

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral) LPAs No. 87, 88, 89, 90, 91 & 95/2014 These appeals are outcome of a common judgment dated 17.06.2013 made by the Writ Court, whereby six Writ Petitions being CWP No. 6591/2012, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & another versus Hardyal Singh, CWP No. 6601/2012, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & another versus Ram Sen, CWP No. 6602/2012, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & another versus Sant Ram, 6603/2012, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & another versus Jawahar Lal, CWP No.6604/2012, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & another versus Chunni Lal and CWP 6605/2012, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & another versus Prem Chand, came to be dismissed , for short, “the impugned judgment”. 2. We deem it proper to decide all these appeals by this common judgment. LPA No. 96/2014 3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th July, 2013, made by the Writ Court in CWP No. 6599 of 2012, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & another versus Adha Singh, whereby the writ petition came to be dismissed. 4. The controversy, facts and questions involved in this case are similar to those of the aforesaid cases, so we deem it proper to decide this appeal also by this common judgment. 5. LPAs No. 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 95 & 96/2014 are taken up for final disposal. 6. We have gone through the impugned judgment, whereby the Writ Court upheld the awards made by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, H.P., hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”, in Reference No. 80 of 2010, dated 25.02.2010, Reference No. 63 of 2009, dated 25.02.2012, Reference No. 65 of 2009, dated 25.02.2012, Reference No. 67 of 2009, dated 25.02.2012 and Reference No. 62 of 2009, dated 25.02.2012. 7. While examining the awards passed by the Tribunal, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the Tribunal has not determined Issue No. 3, which reads as under:- “3. Whether this petition is barred by limitation? ….OPR” 8. After noticing the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, we asked the learned Counsel for the respondent(s) to defend the impugned judgment made by the Writ Court as well as the award made by the Tribunal. 9. Whether this petition is barred by limitation? ….OPR” 8. After noticing the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, we asked the learned Counsel for the respondent(s) to defend the impugned judgment made by the Writ Court as well as the award made by the Tribunal. 9. At this stage, learned Counsel for the parties stated at the Bar that the Tribunal be directed to determine Issue No. 3 within a short period of time and to grant opportunity to the parties for leading evidence. Ordered accordingly. 10. Accordingly, all the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment is set-aside. 11. The writ petitions are disposed of by remanding the cases/references with the direction to the Tribunal to decide Issue No. 3, within six weeks, as indicated above. 12. Parties to appear before the Tribunal on 1st July, 2014. 13. It is made clear that in case any party feels aggrieved, they are at liberty to question the findings already returned by the Tribunal alongwith the findings on Issue No. 3. 14. Pending applications also stand disposed of. Copy dasti.