Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dr.Yashwant Singh Parmar University Of ... vs Brahma Nand And Another on 2 January, 2018
Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Vivek Singh Thakur
.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Letter Patents Appeal Nos. 181, 182,
183,184, 208 and 209 of 2016
Date of Decision 11th December, 2017
________________________________________________________
1. LPA No. 181 of 2016
Dr.Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry
Nauni ....Appellant
Versus
Brahma Nand and another ....Respondents
2. LPA No. 182 of 2016
Dr.Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry
Nauni ....Appellant
Versus
Kishori Lal and another ...Respondents
3. LPA No. 183 of 2016
Dr.Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry
Nauni ....Appellant
Versus
Shyam Singh and another ....Respondents
4. LPA No. 184 of 2016
Dr.Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry
Nauni ....Appellant
Versus
Rajesh Singh and another ....Respondents
::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2018 23:01:57 :::HCHP
2
5. LPA No. 208 of 2016
Dr.Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry
Nauni ....Appellant
.
Versus
Ishwar Dyal and another ....Respondents
6. LPA No. 209 of 2016
Dr.Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry
Nauni ....Appellant
Versus
Hem Raj and another ....Respondents
7. CWP No. 1898 of 2016
Bhagwan Dass ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ....Respondents
________________________________________________________
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Whether approved for reporting?1
______________________________________________________________
For the Appellant(s): Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur,
Advocate in all appeals.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Lalit Kumar Sehgal, Advocate in
CWP No. 1898 of 2016.
For the Respondents: Mr.T.S.Chauhan, Advocate, for
respondent No.1 in all appeals and
Mr.Virender Verma, Addl.Advocate
General for respondent No.1 and
Mr.Balwant Singh Thakur,
1
Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2018 23:01:57 :::HCHP
3
Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to
9 in CWP No. 1898 of 2016.
_____________________________________________________________
.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.(Oral)
This order shall dispose of the aforesaid appeals and also the writ petition involving similar questions of law and facts.
2. The job of cook/helpers in hostels, being run by the appellant University, was initially outsourced/assigned to the respondents workmen as per documents annexed in these appeals and the petitioner in the writ petition on payment of Rs.2000/- per month. The appointment letter is Annexure P-1 to the writ petition filed by the petitoner workman.
3. In terms of the offer of appointment, they furnished an undertaking not to claim regularisation and also seniority for the purpose of regular appointment in the appellant University.
The respondents workmen were being paid their remuneration out of the funds collected from the students residing in the hostels. They continued working/performing the assigned job to them for sufficient long time. However, later on the work of cook/helper was assigned to fresh hands instead of respondents workmen and they were orally asked not to attend the duties assigned to them by the competent authority i.e. Students Welfare Officer of the appellant University.
::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2018 23:01:57 :::HCHP 44. Aggrieved by such an action they raised demand notice and the competent authority referred the dispute to the .
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla. Learned Labour Court vide award under challenge in the writ petition has answered the reference in affirmative by holding their retrenchment contrary to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and directed the appellant University to reinstate them with seniority and continuity. However, they were not held entitled to back wages. So far as petitioner Bhagwan Dass in writ petition is concerned, the reference he preferred was dismissed.
5. Learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petitions preferred by the appellant University in all these appeals has affirmed the award whereby learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court below has ordered the reinstatement of the respondents workmen with seniority and continuity in service.
The appellant University has assailed the judgment Annexure A-1 on several grounds, however, mainly that neither the respondents were workmen within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act nor the Industrial Disputes Act has any application in the given facts and circumstances of these cases.
6. On having gone through the record and hearing learned counsel representing the parties on both sides, it ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2018 23:01:57 :::HCHP 5 appears that the respondents workmen, though were assigned the work of cook/helpers under the order of Students Welfare .
Office, an officer of appellant University looking and managing the affairs of hostels, however, they were being paid out of the funds being subscribed by the students residing in the hostels.
Under the terms and conditions of their employment, they had furnished an undertaking not to claim seniority or regularisation against the posts on the establishment of the appellant University. However, irrespective of it, they could not have been terminated in the manner in which the University did in the case in hand because on one hand they were not allowed to continue their assigned job, whereas on the contrary fresh hands were engaged to do that work and job. Though we are not deciding the question as to whether Industrial Disputes Act is applicable in these cases or not, however, in our considered opinion, the respondents workmen, who had been doing the work of cook and helpers without their being any complaint, should not have been removed from their duties which they were discharging in the hostels. Therefore, their removal from their job is not only violative of the Constitutional provisions but also the principles of natural justice. As a matter of fact, the appellant University had no occasion to engage fresh hands in the place of the ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2018 23:01:57 :::HCHP 6 respondents workmen, who, as a matter of fact, were experienced one having been already discharing their duties as .
cook and helpers respectively. Therefore, the direction issued by learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla to re-
engage them with seniority and continuity is absolutely legal and valid and calls for no interference.
7. Similarly, the petitioner in connected writ petition was also initially appointed on those very terms and conditions as in the case of respondents workmen in the appeals.
Irrespective of the fact that he was appointed on contract basis for a specific period, is legally entitled to claim his reinstatement as Mess helper. Order of engagement is Annexure P-1 to the writ petition filed in this Court. Therefore, we direct the competent authority in the respondent University to reinstate Bhagwan Dass petitioner in the writ petition as Mess helper with contiunity and seniority in service on the terms and conditions as applicable to the other Mess helpers working in the hostels being run by the University.
8. The due and admissible remuneration/wages/fixed salary be released to the respondents workmen within two months from today.
::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2018 23:01:57 :::HCHP 79. Before parting, keeping in view the fact that respondents workmen and petitioner in writ petition are working .
as cook/helpers for the last so many years, it is expected from the appellant University, a model emplyer, to consider their regularisation against suitable post(s) on its establishment and if need be to frame a policy in this regard.
10. With the above observations, all appeals and writ petition stand disposed of so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy of this judgment be placed in all connected appeals and writ petition.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary)
Judge
December 11,2017. (Vivek Singh Thakur),
ms Judge
::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2018 23:01:57 :::HCHP