Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 188 (HP)

State Of H. P. v. Sansar Chand

2019-02-25

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, SURYA KANT

body2019
JUDGMENT Surya Kant, Chief Justice (Oral): - The State of Himachal Pradesh through its Public Works Department has laid challenge to the order dated 26 th March, 2018, passed by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA(D) No. 230 of 2017, whereby the respondents have been held entitled to arrears of pay/financial benefits with effect from the date their services were regularized, i.e., 31 st August, 2012 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. 2. There is no quarrel on facts. The respondents were engaged on daily wage basis as labourers by the petitionerDepartment. Their services were dispensed with without complying with statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondents raised an industrial dispute challenging their retrenchment and the Labour Court cumIndustrial Tribunal vide award dated 30 th June, 2014, answered the Reference in their favour to the extent that the respondents were held entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity of service except back wages from the year 2003 onwards. 3. The award was given effect and the respondents were reinstated in service with continuity of service. It is undeniable that the respondents were entitled to be considered for regularization of their services in terms of the Government Policy and such a consideration was actually granted to them in the year 2015, when vide order dated 29 th May, 2015, their services were ordered to be regularized w.e.f. 31 st August, 2012, but on notional basis. It is also a matter of record that the respondents were dissatisfied with regularization of their services on notional basis, hence they approached the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and pursuant to the orders passed in those proceedings, the respondents made representations. Such representations were turned done by the competent authority on 21 st August, 2017. Still aggrieved, the respondents approached the Tribunal and vide impugned order dated 26 th March, 2018, their claim re: payment of monetary benefits w.e.f. 31 st August, 2012 has been accepted. 4. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General in support of the writ petition, who vehemently contends that respondents challenge to an order passed on 29 th May, 2015 by way of an Original Application filed in the year 2017 was time barred and that the uniform decision taken by the competent authority to grant regularization on notional basis warranted no interference. 5. 5. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions, we do not find any merit therein. We say so for the reason that the respondents were undisputedly reinstated in service by the Labour CourtcumIndustrial Tribunal with continuity of service, though part of back wages was denied to them. Once the respondents were reinstated in service with continuity of service, they shall be deemed to have been serving uninterruptedly. It could not be seriously disputed that had the respondents been in service, but for their illegal retrenchment, their services would have been regularized in the year 2012 itself. It was only after their reinstatement pursuant to the award passed in the year 2014 that their claim for regularization was belatedly considered in the year 2015. Such delay is not attributable to the respondents. Moreover, in case the consequential financial benefits arising out of the order of regularization of services are denied to the respondents, it would lead to a conflict between the order reinstating them in service with continuity of service, especially in the light of the fact that such an award of the Labour Court has already been accepted by the Authorities. 6. As regard to the the preliminary objection of limitation, we do not find any merit therein. It is a matter of record that the respondents had immediately after passing of the order of regularization in the year 2015, approached the Tribunal within limitation and they were asked to make representations to the competent authority. They availed such remedy and their representations were turned down in the year 2017 only, i.e., on 21.08.2017. If the period of limitation is counted from the date post rejecting their claim, the second Original Application filed by them was admittedly within limitation. 7. Taking into consideration the duration of the period for which arrears of pay are required to be paid to the respondents, who are ClassIV employees, we do not deem it necessary to interfere with the order under challenge. The petition is accordingly dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.