Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P. & Another vs Sh. Surender Kumar on 27 April, 2015
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
CWP No.7038 of 2014-D
Date of Decision: 27.04.2015
State of H.P. & another .........Petitioners.
.
Versus
Sh. Surender Kumar .....Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1No.
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, AG., with M/s
Ashok Chaudhary, V.S. Chauhan,
Addl. AGs., and J.S. Guleria, for
the petitioners-State.
For the Respondents: Mr. Avinash Jaryal, Advocate, for
the respondent.
Sanjay Karol, J (oral)
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that no ground for interference is made out with the impugned award dated 01.11.2012, passed by Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P., in Ref. No.265/2010, titled as Shri Surender Kumar Versus The Executive Engineer, HPPWD. Operative portion of the award reads as under:-
"As a sequel to my findings on various issues above, the instant claim petition succeeds in part and the same is partly allowed. The retrenchment of the petitioner is set aside and quashed. The respondent is directed to 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:03:45 :::HCHP 2
re-engage the petitioner forthwith. He shall be entitled to the seniority and continuity in service from the date/month of his illegal termination i.e. January 2005 except back wages. Parties to bear their own costs."
.
2. Despite the fact that Tribunal found the State to have illegally dispensed with the services of the employee, there is no order of back wages.
Petitioner has been held entitled to be re-engaged only with the benefit of seniority and continuity in service.
Findings of fact on the violation of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, cannot be faulted from the record. State illegally dispensed with the services of the employee. Petitioner had offered his services despite his illegal retrenchment. He had also worked for eleven years. As such, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned award. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(Sanjay Karol), Judge.
(Sureshwar Thakur),
April 27, 2015 Judge.
(Purohit)
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:03:45 :::HCHP