Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

The State Of H.P. & Another vs Shri Deep Kumar & Another on 22 September, 2016

Author: Sanjay Karol

Bench: Sanjay Karol

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                                   SHIMLA

                                         CWP No. 1005 of 2016-A
                                         Date of Decision: 22.09.2016




                                                                                .
    The State of H.P. & another                                                 ...Petitioners.





                                         Versus
    Shri Deep Kumar & another                    ..Respondents.





    Coram:
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting? 1No.




                                                     of
    For the Petitioners:                       Mr. R.S. Verma, Addl. AG., for the
                                               petitioners.
    For the Respondents   rt                   Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, for
                                               respondent No.1.
    Sanjay Karol, J (oral)

It is not in dispute that petitioner came to be engaged as a daily wage worker in January, 1997. It is a matter of record that he continued to work as such till the year 2010. According to the State, petitioner did not complete more than 240 days in each English Calendar year. Whereas, according to the employee, arbitrarily work was assigned to him after intervals, and this despite the fact that work was otherwise available. Based on the material available on record, authority below has upheld the contentions of the employee, which finding, cannot be shown as how it is perverse and/or not borne out from the record.

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. Be that as it may, it is a matter of record, as is so admitted by the witnesses of the Department/employer that work came to be assigned to the person junior to the .

employee. Authority below, based on such material, by holding the principle of last come first go, to have been violated, returned findings that statutory provisions of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, stood of infringed, hen ce returned findings holding the petitioner entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits, rt except back wages. Such findings cannot be said to be perverse or borne out from the record, warranting interference by this Court. As such, present petition is dismissed.

3. In view of the above, present petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also pending application(s), if any.

(Sanjay Karol), Judge.

September 22, 2016 (Purohit) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:17:33 :::HCHP