CWP/432/2016 of HPSEB LTD Vs Lal Singh on 31 December 2018

1. CWP No. 432 of 2016

H.P.S.E.B and anotherLal Singh

..Petitioners.

Versus

...Respondent.

2. CWP No. 1104 of 2016H.P.S.E.B and anotherBhim Singh3.CWP No. 433 of 2016H.P.S.E.B and anotherShyam Singh4.CWP No. 434 of 2016

..Petitioners.

Versus

...Respondent.

..Petitioners.

Versus ...Respondent.

H.P.S.E.B and another

..Petitioners.

VersusBahadur Singh ...Respondent. 5.CWP No. 437 of 2016H.P.S.E.B and another..Petitioners.VersusChhaje Ram ...Respondent.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?[1] Yes.

For the Petitioners:Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate.

For the Respondents:Mr. Mohar Singh, Advocate.

Sureshwar Thakur, J

The hereinafter extracted reference(s), stood, transmittedto the Labour Court-cum-industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala (forshort “the Labour Court”) hence for an apt answer being metedthereon:-

“Whether termination of the services of Sh. LalSingh S/o Sh Narain Singh R/o Village Sihri, P.O Gohar,Tehsil Chachot, Distt. Mandi, H.P. by the Sr. ExecutiveEngineer, HPSEB (Elect.) Division Gohar, Distt. Mandi(H.P.) w.e.f 16.3.2000 without issuing charge sheetwithout conducting enquiry and without complying withthe provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, islegal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages,seniority, past service benefits, the above workers areentitled to from the above employer?”

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

“Whether verbal termination of the services ofShri Bhim Singh S/o Shri Natoram Singh, w.e.f25.5.1999 by the Executive Engineer, HPSEB, ElectricalDivision, Mandi, H.P without serving notice, withoutconducting enquiry and without following the provisionsof the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as alleged byworkman, is legal and justified? If not, to what backwages, service benefits and relief the above namedworkman is entitled to from the employer?”

“Whether termination of the services of Sh.Shyam Singh S/o Sh Swaru Ram R/o Village Dadoun,P.O Cheuni, Tehsil Thunag, Dist. Mandi, H.P.,by the Sr.Executive Engineer, HPSEB (Elect.) Division Gohar,Distt. Mandi (H.P.) w.e.f 16.3.2000 without issuingcharge sheet without conducting enquiry and withoutcomplying with the provisions of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount ofback wages, seniority, past service benefits, the aboveworkers are entitled to from the above employer?”

“Whether verbal termination of the services ofShri Bahadur Singh S/o Shri Narain Singh, daily wageworkman by the Executive Engineer, HPSEB, DivisionGohar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. w.e.f 16.3.2000 withoutserving notice and without complying with theprovisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legaland justified? If not, to what back wages, service benefitsand relief the above named workman is entitled to?”

CWP No. 437 of 2016

“Whether termination of the services of Sh.Chhaje Ram S/o Shri Dagnu Ram by the ExecutiveEngineer, H.P.S.E.B Division, Gohar, Distt. Mandi, H.Pw.e.f 22.2.1996, without complying the provisions ofIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? Ifnot, what amount of back wages, seniority, past servicebenefit and compensation the above worked is entitledfrom the employer?”

2. The Labour Court in decision(s) recorded on 17.1.2013, on 11.12.2012, and, on 19.11.2012, upon, the

respective reference(s), rather thereon meted an answer in theaffirmative, and, proceeded to order for re-reinstatement inservice of the respondent(s) herein. The respondents hereinwere also held entitled to the benefit of seniority and continuityin service, from, the date of their illegal termination. However,relief of back wages was declined to the workman concerned.

3. The H.P.S.E.B, being aggrieved therefrom, preferredCWP No. 3087 of 2013, alongwith other connected CWPs beforethis Court. The afore writ petitions stood decided under acommon verdict recorded, thereon, on, 19.10.2013 whereunder, the apt reference petitions were remanded, to the Labour Court,for, making a decision upon the issue appertaining, to, delay andlaches, given, the Principal Bench of this Court, while meting adecision upon the afore writ petitions, concluding qua the aforeissue, being decided, in a perfunctory manner, and, upon theLabour Court, hence, misconstruing and misreading, the,decision recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case Ajaib SinghVersus Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing ServiceSociety Limited and another, reported in (1999) 6 SCC 82.

4. The Labour Court, on, receiving the apt reference(s),on remand, vis-a-vis it, and, after consideration of the materialon record, and, after making an apt ad nauseam allusion, to, averdict made upon Reference No. 41/2001 (RBT No. 403/04)titled as Sh. Hari Singh vs. The Secretary, Irrigation & PublicHealth, Government of H.P., Shimla, and, vis-a-vis a decisionrecorded in case titled as H.P State Forest Corporation versusPresiding Judge, Labour Court, Shimla and another, 2012 (133)FLR 684, besides, upon a decision rendered in Assistant -Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, SubDivision, Kota versus Mohan Lal,Civil Appeal No. 6795 of 2013,decided on 16[th] August, 2013, and, with the afore decision(s)hence expostulating a clear proposition of law, that, (a) thecontroversy vis-a-vis any claim petition being gripped with a viceof delay and laches, rather being amenable for consideration, atthe time of granting of relief, to the aggrieved workman, (b) thatthe Labour Court, even, after it hence proceeding to render anapt answer, upon, the afore controversy, it, after bearing in mindthe apt parameters borne therein, and, upon its hence,proceeding to set aside the termination of the workmen, it, alsohence being empowered to grant a befitting molded relief vis-a-vis the aggrieved workmen, (c) thereupon in consonancetherewith, the learned Labour Court hence, upon, aconsideration of evidence, appertaining to the employers’espousal, qua, the claim being time barred, had, rendered ananswer, vis-a-vis, the employer, and, also proceeded, to,respectively, vis-a-vis, the apt workman hence accord the

relevant compensation, borne in the sum(s) of Rs. 10,000/- andRs. 20,000/- upon the respective reference(s).5.Be that as it may this Court, upon, being seized withwrit petition(s) No. 399, 613, 400, 398 and 614 of 2014, as stoodinstituted herebefore, by the aggrieved workmen, hence quashedand set aside the award of 18.12.2013, to the extent it decidedafresh issue N.3. However, a further direction was also made,upon, the respondents/employer, (i) for reinstating theemployee(s), within, a period of two months, from the date of thepronouncement of judgment, (ii) yet with a rider couched in thephraseology “ If in operation, the respondents shall implementthe awards by inter-alia, reinstating the employee within aperiod of two months from today”, the afore rider estopped theemployer, to, deny relief of reinstatement in service granted, vis-a-vis, the workmen in the afore CWP(s), (iii) however the effectof the afore rider obviously rather stood waned, and, subsumedupon elapse of two months therefrom, (iv) and conspicuouslyupon the employer, within the afore period, rather through an LPA constituted before the Principal Division Bench of thisCourt, hence striving to seek an order for staying the operationof the afore verdict, made, by this Court, upon, the afore writpetitions. However, the afore recourses’ by the employer ratherremained un-availed, thereupon the operation and clout, of, theafore mandate, continued to be binding upon the employer.Even if the principal Division Bench of this Court made anorder, on 3.3.2016, hence for staying the operation, of, theimpugned awards, respectively borne in (Annexure P-5 and inAnnexure P-7), and, with liberty to the workman, to, seekalteration/modification thereof, yet with the workmen, though,not seeking modification, variation thereof, whereupon, it maybe prima-facie concludable qua the rider borne in paragraph 9,of, the judgment pronounced by this Court on 24.7.2015, prima-facie outliving its vigor, (v) however, the afore non-recourse(s),by the workmen, does not strip the vigor of the mandatepronounced, by this Court, as embodied, in, the verdict recordedon 24.7.2015, (vi) given this Court fixing a period of two months, for, the employer, to, hence reinstate the employee(s) in service,(vii) and, when the employer neither constituted any LPAtherefrom, before the Division Bench of this Court, (viii) rather, the employer much belatedly, from, a period of two months,prescribed in the judgment aforesaid, hence filing the aforeCWP, (ix) and, without, any averment being borne therein, for,assailing the findings rendered thereupon, nor, the employermaking any prayer for quashing the aforesaid verdict, (x) ratherestops the appellants herein to seek quashing of Annexure(s) P-5and of P-7. Consequently, the order rendered by this Court,upon, the afore CWPs, does, for all the afore reasons, holdbinding and conclusive effect, and, the respondents are directedto put the same into operation.

6. In view of above, the present writ petitions aredismissed, alongwith all pending applications.

31[st] December, 2018 (Sureshwar Thakur),(priti) Judge.