Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1573 (HP)

Director, Rural Development v. Mohan Singh

2016-08-02

RAJIV SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. - This petition is instituted against the award dated 1.9.2012 rendered by the Presiding Judge, Labour Court cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala in Reference No. 226/2010. 2. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent was engaged by the B.D.O. on daily wage basis as Works Inspector/Supervisor on muster roll with effect from 1.8.1982. He continuously worked in the same capacity upto 30.4.1990. His services were terminated on 1.5.1990. He raised industrial dispute bearing Reference Petition No.89/2002 against his termination. The Reference was decided in his favour on 25.11.2004 by the Labour Court, Dharamshala. The termination order dated 1.5.1990 was set aside. The petitioners were directed to reinstate the respondent along with all the consequential benefits, including back wages and seniority etc. In sequel to the award dated 25.11.2004, respondent was reinstated and full back wages were paid to him. His services were regularised by the petitioners in the year 2007. The respondent raised industrial dispute and the same was referred to the Labour Court by way of Reference No. 226/2010. The reference is as under: "Whether Non-regularization of services as Supervisor of Sh. Mohan Singh son of Sh. Beli Ram, VPO Gumma, Tehsil Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P. by i) The Director, Rural Development, H.P. Shimla-9. ii) The Block Development Officer, Padhan Block, Padhar, District Mandi, H.P. after completion of more than ten years of continuous service as per decision in case titled Moolraj Upadhyay v. State of H.P. by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India/Policy of the State Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages/difference of wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to form the above employers." 3. Learned Labour Court announced the award in favour of the respondent. The petitioners were directed to regularise service of the respondent with effect from 23.12.1995 with all the consequential service benefits. Hence, the present petition. 4. Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the Labour court could not order the regularisation of the respondent with effect from 23.12.1995. 5. Mr. Rahul Mahajan has supported the award dated 1.9.2012. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the award dated 1.9.2012 carefully. 7. The respondent was engaged with effect from 1.8.1982. He was terminated on 1.5.1990. He raised industrial dispute. 5. Mr. Rahul Mahajan has supported the award dated 1.9.2012. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the award dated 1.9.2012 carefully. 7. The respondent was engaged with effect from 1.8.1982. He was terminated on 1.5.1990. He raised industrial dispute. Labour Court decided the reference in favour of the respondent on 25.11.2004. His termination was set aside. The respondent was ordered to be reinstated along with all the consequential benefits including back wages and seniority etc. He was reinstated on 13.12.2004 with back wages. He was regularised in the year 2007. 8. The respondent has appeared as PW-1. He led his evidence by filing affidavit Ex.PW-1/A. PW-2 Mohinder Singh has proved Ex.PW-1/G, i.e. mandays' chart. 9. Gulab Singh has appeared as RW-1. He has categorically admitted that services of the petitioners were engaged in the month of September, 1982 as a Supervisor. Ex.RW-1/E is the final seniority list of Rural Development Department as on 31.1.2010. As per the mandays' chart Annexure P-IV annexed to the petition, it is evident that respondent has worked for 99 days in the year 1982, 323 days in the year 1983, 292 days in the year 1984, 287 days in the year 1985, 322 days in the year 1986, 356 days in the year 1987, 349 days in the year 1988 and 295 days in the year 1989. He has worked for 90 days in the year 1990 when his services were illegally terminated. The termination of the respondent was set aside by the Labour Court vide award dated 25.11.2004. The respondent was ordered to be reinstated with all the consequential benefits including back wages and seniority etc. Thus, the respondent would be deemed to be in continuous service with effect from 1.8.1982. According to the seniority list Ex.RW-1/E, S/Shri Kamal Singh, Suresh Kumar and Chater Singh at Sr. Nos. 7,9 and 10, respectively were regularised with effect from 23.12.1995. The respondent is senior to him since he was engaged on 1.8.1982. According to Mool Raj Upadhyay's case, the workmen who have completed ten years or more of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31.12.1993, were to be appointed as work-charged employees with effect from 1.1.1994. The respondent is senior to him since he was engaged on 1.8.1982. According to Mool Raj Upadhyay's case, the workmen who have completed ten years or more of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year on 31.12.1993, were to be appointed as work-charged employees with effect from 1.1.1994. Since the petitioner would be deemed to be in continuous service with effect from 1.8.1982, he was entitled to the benefit of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyay's case. 10. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, that respondent was to be regularised on the basis of notification dated 11.7.1995. The case of the respondent is covered by Mool Raj Upadhyay's case. It is not a case of retrospective regularisation as argued by Mr. Parmod Thakur. In fact, services of the respondent had been illegal terminated w.e.f. 1.5.1990. His termination was set aside vide award dated 25.11.2004 rendered in Reference Petition No. 89/2002 and he was ordered to be reinstated with all the consequential benefits including back wages and seniority etc. Moreover, he had completed 240 days in the preceding years, as noticed herein above, upto 1990 and thereafter would be deemed to be in continuous service till his reinstatement/regularization, i.e. 23.12.1995. 11. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. No costs.