Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 169 (HP)

Onkar Singh v. Executive Engineer, HPSEB Ltd.

2015-03-12

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26th September, 2012, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1220 of 2008, whereby the writ petition came to be allowed and the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 herein was directed to re-engage the writ respondent No. 1-appellant herein within a period of three months from the date of the order and the direction made by the writ Court regarding re-engagement of the writ respondent No. 1, was affirmed. Brief Facts: 2. It appears that the writ respondent No. 1appellant herein was engaged on daily wage basis in the month of January, 1980 by the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 herein and was dis-engaged on 01.03.1982. 3. The writ respondent had invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court by the medium of Reference No. 118/2001. The Labour Court passed the award on 21.03.2005, whereby the dis-engagement of the writ respondent was set aside and the writ respondent No. 1appellant herein was held entitled for his reinstatement in his original service on the same terms and conditions in which he was working prior to his dis-engagement. 4. Respondent No. 1 challenged the said award by filing CWP No. 659 of 2005, titled as Executive Engineer vs. Onkar Singh and another before this Court, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 08.05.2007, whereby the case was remanded to the Labour Court. The matter was decided afresh by the Labour Court on 17.09.2007. It is apt to reproduce operative part of the award herein: “In view of my findings on above issues, the disengagement of the petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. 1.3.1982 is in contravention of Section 25-F (a), (b) and (c) of the Act and therefore, is liable to the set aside. The petitioner is entitled for his reinstatement in his original service on the same terms and conditions in which he was working prior to his disengagement. Having regard to the totality of the facts, circumstances and the evidence of the parties available on the record the intervening period between the disengagement of the petitioner and raising industrial disputes by the petitioner shall only be liable to be counted towards his seniority i.e. from 1.3.1982 to 5.8.2000. Under the peculiar circumstances of the case, the petitioner shall also not be entitled for back wages. Under the peculiar circumstances of the case, the petitioner shall also not be entitled for back wages. The respondent is directed to reengage the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of announcement of this Award.” 5. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner-respondent No.1 herein questioned the award passed by the Labour Court, by the medium of CWP No. 1220 of 2008, titled as The Executive Engineer versus Onkar Singh & another. The appellant-writ respondent No. 1 has not questioned the award made by the Labour Court. Thus, it has attained finality, so far as it relates to him. 6. The Labour Court has not granted back wages w.e.f. 01.03.1982 till the date of passing of the award i.e. 17.09.2007 to the appellant-writ respondent No. 1, but directed that the period from 01.03.1982 to 05.08.2000 shall not be counted towards his seniority.. The order is silent for the period i.e. w.e.f. 05.08.2000 till 17.09.2007. 7. The appellant-writ respondent No. 1 was to be held entitled to back wages from the date of the award passed by the Labour Court i.e. 17.09.2007, for the reason that the writ petitioner was directed to re-engage the appellant-writ respondent No. 1, within a period of three months from the date of the award. He was not allowed to reap the fruits because the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 herein caused the delay by filing the writ petition. 8. In the given circumstances, the appellant-writ respondent No. 1 is entitled to back wages w.e.f. 17th December, 2007, i.e. after the expiry of three months time frame, as above. Respondent No. 1 is directed to release back wages in favour of the appellant within a period of six months from today. In default, respondent No. 1 to pay interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from today. The period w.e.f. 05.08.2000 till regularization is to be counted for the purpose of seniority. 9. The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is modified, as indicated above.