Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 802 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar

2025-04-24

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners/State have challenged Award dated 30.06.2015, passed by the Court of learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court-Cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala (HP) (Camp at Mandi), in Reference No.61 of 2013, titled as Shri Raj Kumar Versus The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Sundernagar & another, in terms whereof, the Reference made to the Learned Labour Court was answered by it as under:- “16. As a sequel to my findings on the issues above, the reference petition is allowed in part and the termination of the services of the petitioner is set aside and the respondents are hereby directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner shall be entitled to seniority and continuity in service from the date of his illegal termination except back wages. The respondents are also further directed to consider the case of the petitioner forregularization of his services as per the policies framed by the State Government from time to time.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that following Reference was made by the appropriate Government to learned Labour Court:- “Whether termination of the services of Sh. Raj Kumar S/O Sh. Hira Lal, R/O Dhar, Post Office-Balag, Sub Tehsil Nihri, Distt. Mandi, H.P., by The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Sundar Nagar, Distt. Mandi, HP. & Range Officer, Forest Range Jhungi, Division Sundar Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. during the year 1999 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 and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employer?" 3. The claim set up by the workman/claimant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the claimant’) was that he was engaged as a beldar w.e.f. 29.09.1998. He continued till 17.02.2000, when his services were terminated. He had completed more than 240 days prior to the date of his termination. There was a violation of the provisions of the Industrial Tribunal Act as persons other than the claimant, namely, Desh Raj, Ramdayal and Prakash Chand who were junior to him, were allowed to continue and their services were not terminated and in fact, services of many persons who also engaged with the claimant were regularized. There was a violation of the provisions of the Industrial Tribunal Act as persons other than the claimant, namely, Desh Raj, Ramdayal and Prakash Chand who were junior to him, were allowed to continue and their services were not terminated and in fact, services of many persons who also engaged with the claimant were regularized. The claimant initially approached learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of an Original Application, which was dismissed on 15.12.2004 for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter, the claimant raised a Demand Notice in the year 2009, which has resulted in the Reference being made to the State. 4. The employers contested the claim on the ground of maintainability, delay and laches and also put forth the contention that the claimant was initially engaged as a casual labourer to carry out seasonal forestry works on 21.09.1998. He worked intermittently upto 20.08.1999 and had not completed 240 days, as alleged and he himself abandoned the job. 5. Learned Labour Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the termination of the services of the petitioner by the respondent during the year 1999 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR. 3. Whether the petition is hit by the vice of delay and laches as alleged, if so, its effect? OPR. 4. Relief.” 6. The issues so framed were answered by learned Trial Court as under:- Issue Number Status Issue No.1 Yes Issue No.2 No Issue No.3 No Relief Petition is allowed per operative part of the Award.” 7. While deciding Issue No.1, learned Labour Court held that though the Mandays Chart demonstrated that the claimant had not completed 240 days as on the date when his services were terminated and in all, he had worked only for 168 days, however, there was a violation of the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act. Learned Labour Court held that the Mandays Chart Ext.RW1/C, concerning Desh Raj, Ramdayal and Prakash Chand demonstrated that they were engaged in the year 1999 and despite the fact that they were engaged after the claimant, they were still continuing when the the petitioner was disengaged. Learned Labour Court held that the Mandays Chart Ext.RW1/C, concerning Desh Raj, Ramdayal and Prakash Chand demonstrated that they were engaged in the year 1999 and despite the fact that they were engaged after the claimant, they were still continuing when the the petitioner was disengaged. Learned Labour Court by referring to the statement of the claimant, in his examination-in- chief and cross-examination clearly demonstrated that the persons like Desh Raj and Ramdayal, who were juniors to the claimant were retained, while the services of the claimant were disengaged. In Para- 15 of the Award, learned Labour Court held in detail, as to how the petition was not hit by delay and laches and the Reference was answered, as already stated hereinabove. 8. Learned Advocate General argued that the Award was not sustainable in the eyes of law as the learned Court below erred in not appreciating that the claimant had abandoned the work and further, no order with regard to regularization of the services of the claimant could have been passed by learned Labour Court. Learned Advocate General also submitted that the issue of delay and laches has also not been correctly appreciated by learned Labour Court and therefore also, the Award is bad. 9. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant has submitted that the findings returned by learned Labour Court are clearly borne out from the record of the case and as there is no infirmity therein, there is no reason to interfere with the Award. 10. I have heard learned Advocate General as also learned Senior Counsel for the respondents and have also carefully gone through the Award as well as other documents/record of case. 11. Firstly, I will deal with the contention of learned Advocate General qua the industrial dispute being raised by the claimant belatedly. A perusal of the documents appended with the petition demonstrates that after refusal on the part of the appropriate Government to make a Reference in this regard the claimant had approached this Court by way of CWP No.4424 of 2012, titled as Raj Kumar and another Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, and in terms of this judgment passed by this Court on 10.04.2013, it was held that there was no inordinate delay in raising of the industrial dispute and the claim had not become stale. Thereafter, the Court ordered the Labour Commissioner to refer the matter to learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. 12. This Court is of the considered view that in the light of the findings returned in CWP No.4424 of 2012 (supra), which have attained finality, the petitioners cannot agitate the issue of staleness of the claim, because if the State was really serious of the contention of its, then it ought to have had challenged the findings returned by this Court in CWP No.4424 of 2012 (supra). Thus, as findings in this regard have attained finality, the State cannot be allowed to re- agitate the same again. This is more so for the reason that it is not as if in the earlier writ petition, this Court had made an observation that learned Tribunal can adjudicate the issue of delay and laches. This Court categorically held that the claim was not stale and delay of four years could not be termed to be inordinate delay. 13. As far as the findings returned by Labour Court on merit are concerned, a careful perusal of the Award and documents appended with the writ petition which were part of the record demonstrates that there is no perversity therein. It is a matter of record, as has been decided by learned Labour Court that though the claimant had not completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months as from the date of its termination, however, persons appointed after him and alongwith him were allowed to continue and some of them were also regularized subsequently. Not only this, the petitioners herein had taken the stand of abandonment of work by the claimant which it failed to prove before learned Labour Court. 14. Therefore, as the findings returned by learned Labour Court are clearly borne out from the record and during the course of arguments of this case, it could not be pointed out by learned Advocate General also as to which findings returned by learned Labour Court were not borne out from the record of the case, this Court does not finds any reason to interfere with the same. In fact, the testimony of the claimant could not be shattered even in his cross-examination to the effect that Desh Raj and Ramdayal who were junior to him, i.e. who were appointed in the year 1999, whereas the claimant was engaged in the year 1998, were allowed to continue, whereas the services of the claimant were discontinued, which amounted to the violation of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. 15. In the light of above observation, as this Court does not finds any perversity in the order passed by learned Labour Court, this petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.