Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1806 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Jeet Ram

2015-12-07

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. All these petitions pertain to a common subject matter, hence, are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The respondents herein stood engaged on a daily wage basis by the petitioners-State. The services of the respondents herein as daily wagers under the petitioners herein stood terminated by the latter on the ground of the objectives of the project nomenclatured as Integrated Water Shed Development Project, Kandi standing achieved, hence, obviously on completion of the project aforesaid sequelling effect of closure of industrial undertaking, the services of the respondents not being required. The respondents herein raised an industrial dispute qua their termination from service by the petitioners herein. The Industrial dispute as raised by the respondents herein did not mete with any success before the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Solan. On conciliatory efforts of the Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer for amicably settling the industrial dispute generated by the respondents herein arising out of their purported illegal termination from services by the petitioners herein bearing no fruition, the Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer hence referred the matter to the competent authority of the appropriate government. The competent authority of the appropriate government formulated reference(s) couched in the hereinafter extracted phraseology for adjudications thereupon by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court concerned:- In CWP No.2081:- “Whether termination of services of Sh. Jeet Singh son of Sh. Rattan Chand, w.e.f. 30.9.2005 by the Employer without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what service benefits, seniority, back wages and amount of compensation the aggrieved workman is entitled to?” In CWP No.2060:- “Whether the termination of services of Shri Ram Sawroop S/o Shri Varyam Singh w.e.f. 30.09.2005 by the Employer without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what service benefits, seniority, back wages and amount of compensation the aggrieved workman is entitled to?” In CWP No.2061:- “Whether the termination of services of Shri Dalbir Singh son of Shri Khajana Ram w.e.f. 30.09.2005 by the Project Director, Kandi Integrated Water Shed, Tank Road Solan, District Solan, H.P. without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits, seniority, back wages and amount of compensation the aggrieved workman is entitled to?” In CWP No.2063:- “Whether the termination of services of Shri Yudhbir Singh S/o Shri Raja Ram w.e.f. 30.09.2005 by the Project Director, Kandi Integrated Water Shed, Tank Road Solan, District Solan, H.P. without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits, seniority, back wages and amount of compensation the aggrieved workman is entitled to?” In CWP No.2065:- “Whether the termination of services of Smt. Nirmla Devi, W/o Shri Chint Ram w.e.f. 30.09.2005 by the Employer without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what service benefits, seniority, back wages and amount of compensation the aggrieved workman is entitled to?” In CWP No.2080:- “Whether the termination of services of Smt. Tripta Devi W/o Shri Kuldeep Singh w.e.f. 30.09.2005 by the Employer without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits, seniority, back wages and amount of compensation the aggrieved workman is entitled to?” In CWP No.2083:- “Whether the termination of services of Shri Sanjeev Kumar S/o Shri Tirath Ram w.e.f. 30.09.2005 by the Employer without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits, seniority, back wages and amount of compensation the aggrieved workman is entitled to?” In CWP No.2084:- “Whether the termination of services of Shri Avtar Singh S/o Shri Gurbachan w.e.f. 30.09.2005 by the Project Director, Kandi Integrated Water Shed, Tank Road Solan, District Solan, H.P. without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits, seniority, back wages and amount of compensation the aggrieved workman is entitled to?” In CWP No.2085:- “Whether the termination of services of Shri Dev Raj, S/o Shri Sharan Dass w.e.f. 30.09.2005 by the Employer without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits, seniority, back wages and amount of compensation the aggrieved workman is entitled to?” 3. If not, what relief of service benefits, seniority, back wages and amount of compensation the aggrieved workman is entitled to?” 3. The learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla on being seized of the references constituting therein the Industrial disputes raised by the respondents herein proceeded to on an analysis of the evidence as adduced before it conclude qua given the deposition on oath of RW-1 of Mid Himalyan Project standing declared as the successor project of Integrated Water Shed Development Project, Kandi, the latter's infrastructure besides records hence standing transferred to Mid Himalyan Project also of an offer of engagement of the respondents herein on a contractual basis in Mid Hamalyan Project remaining un-responded to by the respondents herein besides evidence omitting to disclose qua the appointment of the respondents herein under the petitioners herein being project specific or co-terminus with the completion of the objectives of the Integrated Water Shed Development Project, Kandi, on purported completion whereof of the services of the respondents being untenably construed by the petitioners herein to be amenable to automatic termination without any entitlements standing aroused in their favour sequelly lending sustenance to their claim for relief under the Industrial Dispute Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), arising from the petitioners herein having begotten infraction of the mandate of Section 25F of the Act comprised in theirs having not proven theirs defraying to the respondents herein retrenchment compensation nor proven the factum of one month's notice preceding Ex.PB standing served upon the respondents herein, hence, necessitating the ordering for the respondents herein standing entitled for theirs being re-engaged in service with seniority and continuity in service. However, the relief of back wages stood not afforded to the respondents herein. 4. It manifestly surfaces from a perusal of the records, of the respondents herein having rendered 240 days of work in each of the calender years of their respective service under the petitioners herein. In sequel, it was enjoined upon the petitioners herein to before disengaging them from service mete compliance with the mandatory statutory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act whereby they were statutorily obliged to serve one month's notice upon each of the respondents herein preceding or prior to their termination from service besides were enjoined to defray to each of the respondents herein retrenchment compensation in lieu thereof. However, it stands aptly concluded by the learned Industrial Tribunalcum- Labour Court, Shimla of evidence in portrayal of statutory compliance by the petitioners herein qua the statutory facets aforesaid standing begotten by the petitioners herein while dispensing with the services of the respondents herein being amiss. For omission of compliance by the petitioners herein with the mandatory statutory conditions fastened upon them by Section 25F of the Act before theirs terminating the services of the respondents herein, renders the termination of the services of the respondents herein by them to be in gross and flagrant violation of the mandate of law. Necessarily then, the impugned renditions of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court do not suffer from any infirmity. 5. The learned Deputy Advocate General has vigorously concerted to persuade this Court qua with the objectives of the Integrated Water Shed Development Project, Kandi standing completion besides standing achieved rendered it to be an industrial undertaking no longer in existence. In other words, he contends that with the industrial undertaking aforesaid standing closed does not render the impugned awards of the Industrial Tribunalcum- Labour Court ordering for the reengagement of the respondents herein in service by the petitioners herein to be valid or sustainable. However, the above argument is unacceptable to this Court, in view of a vivid disclosure in the testimony of RW-1, of Mid Himalyan Project standing declared as the successor project of Integrated Water Shed Development Project, Kandi besides, the latter's infrastructure and records standing transferred to Mid Hmalyan Project. Apart therefrom, with a manifestation in the deposition of RW-1 of an offer for engagement on contractual basis standing purveyed by the petitioners to the respondents herein in the successor project to the Integrated Water Shed Development Project, Kandi wherein the respondents herein stood initially engaged as daily wagers inasmuch as in the Mid Himalyan Project which offer remained unresponded to by the respondents herein, gives immense strength to an inference of the hitherto project or the industrial undertaking nomenclatured as Integrated Water Shed Development Project, Kandi neither standing terminated nor standing closed rather its objectives and goals standing transferred for their completion by its successor industrial undertaking nomenclatured as Mid Himalyan Project. With a formation of an inference of Integrated Water Shed Development Project, Kandi being an industrial undertaking still in existence though with a changed nomenclature inasmuch as its being re-christened as H.P. Mid Himalyan Water Shed Development, Project hence in no manner empowered the petitioners while disengaging the services of the respondents herein to omit to not adhere to the mandate of the provisions engrafted in Section 25F and Section 25G of the Act inasmuch as (a) given the uncontroverted factum of the respondents herein having rendered 240 days of work in each of their respective calender years of their respective services under the petitioners herein, theirs being entitled to receive one month's notice preceding Ex.PB ; (b) in lieu thereof theirs being entitled to receive from the petitioners herein retrenchment allowance and (c) the petitioners herein while disengaging the respondents herein from service adhering to the principle of last come first go. However, for reasons a foretasted, the entire record is palpably reticent qua the petitioners herein while disengaging the respondents herein from services having meted compliance to the aforesaid mandatory statutory provisions engrafted in Sections 25F and 25G of the Act. Given the open transgression by the petitioners herein of the mandate of Section 25F besides of Section 25G of the Act for reiteration renders the termination of services of the respondents herein by them to be no nest. 6. Given the open transgression by the petitioners herein of the mandate of Section 25F besides of Section 25G of the Act for reiteration renders the termination of services of the respondents herein by them to be no nest. 6. Dehors the above factum as stand manifested in the deposition of RW-1 is of the respondents herein standing purveyed an offer by the petitioners herein for theirs being re-engaged as labourers on a contractual basis in the successor industrial venture or industrial undertaking of the hitherto industrial undertaking christened as Integrated Water Shed Development Project, Kandi wherefrom services of the respondents herein stood terminated inasmuch as in the re-christened industrial undertaking to the aforesaid erstwhile industrial undertaking with its carrying a rechristened identity of Mid Himalyan Water Shed Development Project, Solan, whereas, with no proof in sustenance thereof existing on record does also give adequate room for deriving a deduction therefrom, of the petitioners herein intending to secure the service of the respondents herein as labourers on a contractual basis, even when the successor project to the aforesaid erstwhile industrial undertaking while its carrying the nomenclature of H.P. Mid Himalyan Water Shed Development Project came into being or in existence for completing the goals or objectives as were to be accomplished by its hitherto or predecessor industrial undertaking nomenclatured as Integrated Water Shed Development Project, Kandi, which inference concomitantly gives latitude to an apt deduction of the successor project to the erstwhile project nomenclatured as Integrated Water Shed Development Project, Kandi yet hence keeping alive besides not rendering closed or terminated the undertakings of even the aforesaid erstwhile project. In aftermath, disengagement of the respondents herein as labouers therefrom was rendered unnecessary especially when the newly acquired identity of the erstwhile project aforesaid did not tantamount to any closure of its industrial undertaking rather the aforesaid newly acquired identity of the erstwhile project aforesaid gives or imparts besides infuses in it in continuum renewed life and vigour. An industrial undertaking does not face closure on its objectives and goals standing transferred for theirs being achieved by its acquiring a new identity. 6. For the foregoing reasons, I find no infirmity in the impugned awards passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla. Accordingly, there is no merit in these petitions which are dismissed. The impugned awards are maintained and affirmed. No costs. All pending applications stand disposed of.