Himachal Pradesh High Court
______________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. And Another on 19 June, 2015
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
C.W.P. No. 7489 of 2012
.
Date of decision: 19th June, 2015
______________________________________________
Sesh Ram Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another Respondents
__________________________________________________
Coram :
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Whether approved for reporting ? No
__________________________________________________
For the Petitioner : Mr. V.D. Khidta, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. V.K. Verma, Additional
Advocate General
_________________________________________________
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.(Oral)
By medium of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following substantial reliefs:-
(i) That the writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and the impugned award, dated 8.5.2012 (Annexure P-6) may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to re-engage the petitioner with effect from 1.12.2001 with all consequential benefits including the arrears of salary, regularization and pension etc. for the sake of justice.
2. The appropriate Government sent the following reference to the learned Labour Court :-
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:24:37 :::HCHP 2"Whether termination of the service of Sh. Shesh Ram, son of Sh. Kirtu, workman by the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Karsog, District Mandi, .
(H.P.) w.e.f. 01.12.2001 without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is proper and justified ? If not, to what back wages, seniority, service benefits and relief the above named workman is entitled to ?"
3. The claim of the petitioner was that his services had been illegally retrenched, whereas the stand of the respondents was that on account of old age of the petitioner, he of his own accord, had left the job. On 29.10.2010, the learned Labour Court framed the following issues :-
1. Whether the termination of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.12.2001 is in violation of the provisions of Sections 25-
F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, as alleged. If so, to what relief the petitioner is entitled to ?
OPP
2. Whether the claim is not maintainable, as alleged. If so, its effect thereto ? OPR
3. Relief.
4. The learned Labour Court after examining the witnesses came to a categoric conclusion that since the age of the petitioner in the family register was recorded as 28 years in the year 1960, he was already about 70 years of age in the year 2001 and accordingly dismissed the reference.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the award passed by the learned Labour Court is illegal, unjust, arbitrary and against principles of natural justice and the learned tribunal below has not taken into ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:24:37 :::HCHP 3 consideration the documents, more particularly Ex. PW-1/B and PW-1/C, wherein the age of the petitioner has been .
mentioned and proved as 4.7.1952. He further contends that the learned Court below has further erred in placing reliance on Ex. RW-2/A and Ex. RW-2/B, wherein age of the petitioner has been recorded as 28 years in the year 1960. On the other hand, Mr. Virender Verma, learned Additional learned Labour Corut.
r to Advocate General, has supported the award passed by the
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case.
7. It is not in dispute that the first document, in point of time, is the copy of the Parivar Register, issued on 12.8.1970 (Ex. R-3), depicting therein the status of the family of the petitioner as in the year 1960. The name of the petitioner appears at Sr. No. 3 and his age is shown to be 28 years, meaning thereby the date of birth of the petitioner would fall back to the year 1932. Insofar as the documents, Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. PW-1/C are concerned, no presumption to the same can be attached as these were prepared subsequently, that too on the asking of the petitioner.
8. The records reveal that initially the petitioner was resident of Gram Panchayat Shorshan and with the creation of the new Panchayat Kahanu, some of the villages falling within the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat Shorshan came in the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat Kahanu. It has also come ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:24:37 :::HCHP 4 on record that the petitioner got the entries corrected when the new records were created for Gram Panchayat Kahanu during .
the year 2007, when the litigation between the parties had already commenced.
9. The finding regarding date of birth of the petitioner is a finding of fact and unless the same is perverse or contrary to record and even if two views are possible, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction, cannot interfere with the pure finding of fact, therefore, the impugned award does not call for any interference and the petition is required to be dismissed.
10. In result, the petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
19th June, 2015(K) (Tarlok Singh Chauhan), Judge ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:24:37 :::HCHP