Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P. & Others vs Sh. Basant Singh Thakur on 22 June, 2016
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
CWP No. 9 of 2006-I
Date of Decision: 22.06.2016
State of H.P. & others ...Petitioners.
.
Versus
Sh. Basant Singh Thakur. ....Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1No.
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.S. Verma and Mr.R.M. Bisht, Addl.
AGs., for the petitioners-State.
of
For the Respondents: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, for
respondent No.1.
Sanjay Karol, J (oral)
Learned counsel for respondent No.1, states that rt respondent-employee shall give up his claim for back wages.
2. In terms of impugned award dated 01.10.2005, passed by Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, in Reference No.142/2003 (RBT No.411/04), titled as Shri Basant Singh Versus Executive Engineer & another, Tribunal has directed the petitioner's reinstatement with all consequential service benefits and payment of back wages to the extent of 30% w.e.f.
December, 1992.
3. Record reveals that workman Basant Singh was engaged as a Beldar-cum-mason on daily wages. The man 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:13 :::HCHP 2days chart does reflect that he had worked since July, 1988 till the day of his alleged termination. According to the State, the workman abandoned the job. Whereas, according .
to the workman, he was disengaged and no work allotted to him, despite availability of work and services of his juniors, who came to be engaged later on , continued to be availed.
Record further reveals that while answering issue No.1, of Tribunal referred to and relied upon the testimony of the workman as also Mate, Purbi Ram (PW.2), an employee of rt the State, who has proved that petitioner uninterruptedly continued to discharge his work till May, 1994. The workman had worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year, preceding his termination. Sh. C.S. Pathania (RW-1) appearing as a witness on behalf of the State could not depose anything with regard to the disengagement of the workman.
4. From the ocular version, it has further come on record that the services of the workmen, who were subsequently engaged by the Department, continued to be availed. Work was available and there was nothing against the workman.
There is violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As such, to this extent no ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:13 :::HCHP 3 error can be found with the findings returned by the Tribunal.
5. However, in para-21 of the award, it stands specifically .
held by the Tribunal that the petitioner came to be disengaged w.e.f. December, 1992. It is here that the Tribunal committed factual mistake. Such finding is contrary to the pleaded and proven case of the workman , according of to whom, his disengagement came in May, 1994. Also reference was sought and confined for such period. As such, rt impugned order dated 01.10.2005, passed by Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, in Reference No.142/2003 (RBT No.411/04), titled as Shri Basant Singh Versus Executive Engineer & another, is modified to the following extent:-
i) Petitioner shall be entitled for reinstatement and other consequential benefits w.e.f. May, 1994;
ii) As conceded by the petitioner, he shall not be entitled for any back wages in terms of the impugned award; and
iii) The amount released in favour of the petitioner pursuant to inter im order dated 06.01.2010, shall be adjusted against future wages .
With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.
(Sanjay Karol),
June 22, 2016 (Purohit) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:38:13 :::HCHP