Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2324 (HP)

H. P. S. E. B. v. Lal Singh

2018-12-31

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The hereinafter extracted references, stood, transmitted to the Labour Court-cumindustrial Tribunal, Dharamshala (for short “the Labour Court”) hence for an apt answer being meted thereon:- in CWP No. 432 of 2016 “Whether termination of the services of Sh. Lal Singh S/o Sh Narain Singh R/o Village Sihri, P.O Gohar, Tehsil Chachot, Distt. Mandi, H.P. by the Sr. Executive Engineer, HPSEB (Elect.) Division Gohar, Distt. Mandi (H.P.) w.e.f 16.3.2000 without issuing charge sheet without conducting enquiry and without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits, the above workers are entitled to from the above employer?” in CWP No. 1104 of 2016 “Whether verbal termination of the services of Shri Bhim Singh S/o Shri Natoram Singh, w.e.f 25.5.1999 by the Executive Engineer, HPSEB, Electrical Division, Mandi, H.P without serving notice, without conducting enquiry and without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as alleged by workman, is legal and justified? If not, to what back wages, service benefits and relief the above named workman is entitled to from the employer?” in CWP No. 433 of 2016 “Whether termination of the services of Sh. Shyam Singh S/o Sh Swaru Ram R/o Village Dadoun, P.O Cheuni, Tehsil Thunag, Dist. Mandi, H.P.,by the Sr. Executive Engineer, HPSEB (Elect.) Division Gohar, Distt. Mandi (H.P.) w.e.f 16.3.2000 without issuing charge sheet without conducting enquiry and without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits, the above workers are entitled to from the above employer?” in CWP No. 434 of 2016 “Whether verbal termination of the services of Shri Bahadur Singh S/o Shri Narain Singh, daily wage workman by the Executive Engineer, HPSEB, Division Gohar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. w.e.f 16.3.2000 without serving notice and without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what back wages, service benefits and relief the above named workman is entitled to?” CWP No. 437 of 2016 “Whether termination of the services of Sh. Chhaje Ram S/o Shri Dagnu Ram by the Executive Engineer, H.P.S.E.B Division, Gohar, Distt. Mandi, H.P w.e.f 22.2.1996, without complying the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what back wages, service benefits and relief the above named workman is entitled to?” CWP No. 437 of 2016 “Whether termination of the services of Sh. Chhaje Ram S/o Shri Dagnu Ram by the Executive Engineer, H.P.S.E.B Division, Gohar, Distt. Mandi, H.P w.e.f 22.2.1996, without complying the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefit and compensation the above worked is entitled from the employer?” 2. The Labour Court in decisions recorded on 17.1.2013, on 11.12.2012, and, on 19.11.2012, upon, the respective references, rather thereon meted an answer in the affirmative, and, proceeded to order for re-reinstatement in service of the respondent(s) herein. The respondents herein were also held entitled to the benefit of seniority and continuity in service, from, the date of their illegal termination. However, relief of back wages was declined to the workman concerned. 3. The H.P.S.E.B, being aggrieved therefrom, preferred CWP No. 3087 of 2013, alongwith other connected CWPs before this Court. The afore writ petitions stood decided under a common verdict recorded, thereon, on, 19.10.2013 whereunder, the apt reference petitions were remanded, to the Labour Court, for, making a decision upon the issue appertaining, to, delay and laches, given, the Principal Bench of this Court, while meting a decision upon the afore writ petitions, concluding qua the afore issue, being decided, in a perfunctory manner, and, upon the Labour Court, hence, misconstruing and misreading, the, decision recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case Ajaib Singh Versus Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Limited and another, reported in (1999) 6 SCC 82 . 4. The Labour Court, on, receiving the apt references, on remand, vis-a-vis it, and, after consideration of the material on record, and, after making an apt ad nauseam allusion, to, a verdict made upon Reference No. 41/2001 (RBT No. 403/04) titled as Sh. 4. The Labour Court, on, receiving the apt references, on remand, vis-a-vis it, and, after consideration of the material on record, and, after making an apt ad nauseam allusion, to, a verdict made upon Reference No. 41/2001 (RBT No. 403/04) titled as Sh. Hari Singh vs. The Secretary, Irrigation & Public Health, Government of H.P., Shimla, and, vis-a-vis a decision recorded in case titled as H.P State Forest Corporation versus Presiding Judge, Labour Court, Shimla and another, 2012 (133) FLR 684, besides, upon a decision rendered in Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub- Division, Kota versus Mohan Lal, Civil Appeal No. 6795 of 2013, decided on 16th August, 2013, and, with the afore decision(s) hence expostulating a clear proposition of law, that, (a) the controversy vis-a-vis any claim petition being gripped with a vice of delay and laches, rather being amenable for consideration, at the time of granting of relief, to the aggrieved workman, (b) that the Labour Court, even, after it hence proceeding to render an apt answer, upon, the afore controversy, it, after bearing in mind the apt parameters borne therein, and, upon its hence, proceeding to set aside the termination of the workmen, it, also hence being empowered to grant a befitting molded relief vis-a-vis the aggrieved workmen, (c) thereupon in consonance therewith, the learned Labour Court hence, upon, a consideration of evidence, appertaining to the employers’ espousal, qua, the claim being time barred, had, rendered an answer, vis-a-vis, the employer, and, also proceeded, to, respectively, vis-a-vis, the apt workman hence accord the relevant compensation, borne in the sum(s) of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- upon the respective reference(s). 5. Be that as it may this Court, upon, being seized with writ petition(s) No. 399, 613, 400, 398 and 614 of 2014, as stood instituted here before, by the aggrieved workmen, hence quashed and set aside the award of 18.12.2013, to the extent it decided afresh issue N.3. 10,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- upon the respective reference(s). 5. Be that as it may this Court, upon, being seized with writ petition(s) No. 399, 613, 400, 398 and 614 of 2014, as stood instituted here before, by the aggrieved workmen, hence quashed and set aside the award of 18.12.2013, to the extent it decided afresh issue N.3. However, a further direction was also made, upon, the respondents/employer, (i) for reinstating the employee's, within, a period of two months, from the date of the pronouncement of judgment, (ii) yet with a rider couched in the phraseology “ If in operation, the respondents shall implement the awards by inter-alia, reinstating the employee within a period of two months from today”, the afore rider estopped the employer, to, deny relief of reinstatement in service granted, vis-a-vis, the workmen in the afore CWP(s), (iii) however the effect of the afore rider obviously rather stood waned, and, subsumed upon elapse of two months there from, (iv) and conspicuously upon the employer, within the afore period, rather through an LPA constituted before the Principal Division Bench of this Court, hence striving to seek an order for staying the operation of the afore verdict, made, by this Court, upon, the afore writ petitions. However, the afore recourses’ by the employer rather remained unavailed, thereupon the operation and clout, of, the afore mandate, continued to be binding upon the employer. However, the afore recourses’ by the employer rather remained unavailed, thereupon the operation and clout, of, the afore mandate, continued to be binding upon the employer. Even if the principal Division Bench of this Court made an order, on 3.3.2016, hence for staying the operation, of, the impugned awards, respectively borne in (Annexure P-5 and in Annexure P-7), and, with liberty to the workman, to, seek alteration/modification thereof, yet with the workmen, though, not seeking modification, variation thereof, whereupon, it may be prima-facie concludable qua the rider borne in paragraph 9, of, the judgment pronounced by this Court on 24.7.2015, prima-facie outliving its vigor, (v) however, the afore non-recourse(s), by the workmen, does not strip the vigor of the mandate pronounced, by this Court, as embodied, in, the verdict recorded on 24.7.2015, (vi) given this Court fixing a period of two months, for, the employer, to, hence reinstate the employee(s) in service, (vii) and, when the employer neither constituted any LPA therefrom, before the Division Bench of this Court, (viii) rather, the employer much belatedly, from, a period of two months, prescribed in the judgment aforesaid, hence filing the afore CWP, (ix) and, without, any averment being borne therein, for, assailing the findings rendered thereupon, nor, the employer making any prayer for quashing the aforesaid verdict, (x) rather estops the appellants herein to seek quashing of Annexure(s) P-5 and of P-7. Consequently, the order rendered by this Court, upon, the afore CWPs, does, for all the afore reasons, hold binding and conclusive effect, and, the respondents are directed to put the same into operation. 6. In view of above, the present writ petitions are dismissed, alongwith all pending applications.