Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shri Bhag Mal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 2 September, 2019
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
CWP No.: 1886 of 2013
Date of Decision: 02.09.2019
______________________________________________________________________
Shri Bhag Mal ....Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh and others .....Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate
General, with M/s Amit Kumar Dhumal
& Divya Sood, Deputy Advocate Generals
and Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia, Assistant
Advocate General.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral):
By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:
"(i) To quash the award dated 03.09.2012, passed by Ld. Labour Court in Reference No. 78/2011 (Annexure P6) and the reference and the claim petition filed by the petitioner before the Ld. Labour Court (Annexure P3) may very kindly be allowed by ordering the reinstatement of the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits, such as back wages, seniority, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 03:01:52 :::HCHP 2continuity in service, regularization and other service benefits from the due date. Accordingly the reference .
may very kindly be ordered to be answered in favour of the petitioner in the ends of law and justice."
2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Junior Draughtsman in the office of Executive Engineer, Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, Salooni Division, District Chamba on contract basis and he joined as such on 23.02.1995 and continued to work as such till 23.02.1996. After completion of the contract period, his term was extended by the respondentDepartment regularly up to 30.09.1999. In fact, till 30.09.1999, petitioner was granted five extensions from time to time. On 30.09.1999, when the term of extended contract came to an end, the services of the petitioner were verbally terminated by the concerned Executive Engineer. Feeling aggrieved, he filed an Original Application before the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, i.e., O.A. No. 493 of 2000 against his termination. The same was subsequently withdrawn by the petitioner in view of an objection raised by the respondentDepartment before the Tribunal with regard to maintainability of the Original Application. Thereafter, he raised an industrial dispute. On the basis of the said industrial dispute raised by the petitioner, the following Reference was made by the appropriate ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 03:01:52 :::HCHP 3 Government to the learned Labour CourtcumIndustrial Tribunal, .
Dharamshala for adjudication:
"Whether the verbal termination of services of Shri Bhag Mal, S/o Shri Rattu Ram by the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division, Salooni, District Chamba, H.P. w.e.f. 01.10.1999 (Dispute referred keeping in view the order dated 22.03.2007 of Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 493/2000 filed by the above named worker) without serving notice, without holding enquiry and without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what wages, service benefits and relief the above named workman is entitled to?"
3. Vide award, dated 03.09.2012 in Reference No. 78/2011, was decided by the learned Tribunal against the workman by holding that the petitioner (workman) had abandoned the job of his own accord and free volition and he did not join duties despite intimations sent to him by the employer time and again. Learned Tribunal also held that the industrial dispute apparently stood raised by the petitioner at a belated stage to derive undue benefit of regularization of his services, as services of one of his companion Shri Hukam Singh stood regularized.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 03:01:52 :::HCHP 44. Feeling aggrieved by the award so passed by the .
learned Court below, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the award under challenge as well as other documents appended with the petition and also the record of the case.
6. The case, as was put forth by the petitioner, has already been narrated by me hereinabove. The response which was filed by the employer to the claim petition filed by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal demonstrates that it was mentioned therein that after his initial appointment on contract basis, the contract of the petitioner was extended from time to time, as detailed in para3 of the reply filed to the claim petition. This included extensions given by the Superintending Engineer, 7th Circle, H.P.P.W.D., Dalhousie from 07.05.1999 to 30.06.1999, from 15.09.1999 to 30.09.1999 and from 29.02.2000 to 31.03.2000. However, in the meanwhile, the petitioner left the job of his own w.e.f. 01.10.1999, though even after this date, on receipt of extension of contract, the same was extended from time to time up to 31.03.2001.
7. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that record of the learned Tribunal would demonstrate that communications were sent to the petitioner, yet he did not turn up to join the services, as he was not interested to perform the duties of a Junior ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 03:01:52 :::HCHP 5 Draughtsman on contract basis. He stated that though the Original .
Application filed by the petitioner in the year 2000 was withdrawn by him on 22.03.2007 with liberty to approach the appropriate Forum, yet he raised the Demand Notice only in the year 2010, i.e., after a lapse of three years, which lapse was not satisfactorily explained.
8. A perusal of the award demonstrates that the learned Tribunal besides holding that the petitionerWorkman had voluntarily abandoned the job, also observed that there was undue delay in the petitioner approaching the Tribunal.
9. A perusal of the record demonstrates that the petitioner lastly worked till 30.09.1999. There are on record documents, such as Ex. RW1/D3 and Ex. RW1/D4 as also Ex.RW1/D5, to name a few, which demonstrate that extension in the contract of the petitioner was given even after 30.06.1999. There are also on record communications issued by the employer to the petitioner (RW2/D), vide which, intimation was sent to the petitioner of his willful absence from Government duty while directing him to join the duty forthwith.
Ex.RW2/D is dated 01.02.2001. Therefore, there is ample material on record to demonstrate that the services of the petitioner were not arbitrarily terminated by the employer, as alleged, however, to the contrary, it was the petitioner who abandoned the job and did not join despite the employer asking him to do so.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 03:01:52 :::HCHP 610. There is also on record copy of the order, dated .
22.03.2007, passed by the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 493/2000 filed by the petitioner against his alleged termination, vide which, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the Original Application with liberty to seek appropriate remedy before the appropriate Forum. It is not in dispute that after withdrawing the Original Application in the year 2007, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute about his alleged termination by the respondentDepartment in the year 2010. There is no cogent explanation on record to justify this delay in approaching the learned Labour CourtcumIndustrial Tribunal by way of an industrial dispute once the petitioner had withdrawn the Original Application with liberty to do the same. These delays and latches in approaching the learned Forum below have gone unexplained even during the course of hearing of the case and the only inference which can be drawn is that petitioner raised industrial dispute as an afterthought.
Accordingly, having perused the impugned award as also the record of the learned Tribunal, it cannot be said that the findings returned in the impugned award are perverse. It is duly proved on record that the petitioner abandoned his services on 30.03.1999 and there is no cogent explanation given by him as to why after withdrawal of the Original Application, the petitioner took about three years in approaching the appropriate Forum for the redressal of his grievance. Therefore, in these ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 03:01:52 :::HCHP 7 circumstances, this Court finds no infirmity with the award, dated .
03.09.2012, passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, as this petition is without any merit, the same is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 02, 2019 (bhupender) ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 03:01:52 :::HCHP