Dismissed

Labour Commissioner v. Cipla Ltd.

Himachal Pradesh HC9 Dec 2014LPA/126/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed appeals challenging a Writ Court judgment that quashed a Labour Reference Order and an order directing training for an appellant. The Court upheld the lower court's finding that the appellant, who underwent training and was absent, was not a workman.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment upholding that the appellant was not a workman was upheld. The appeal was dismissed along with all pending applications.

Labour Commissioner Vs Cipla Ltd. — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

	LPA No. 378 of 2012 a/w LPA No. 126 of 2013 Decided on: 09.12.2014
LPA No. 378 of 2012
Pardeep Kumar	…Appellant.
	Versus
Cipla Ltd. & others ............................................	…Respondent. .................................................................
LPA No. 126 of 2013
State of Himachal Pradesh	& another …Appellants.
	Versus
Cipla Ltd. & others	…Respondent.

¶3

Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

¶4

Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

¶5

LPA No. 378 of 2012 For the appellant:	Mr. Surinder Prakash Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents:	Mr. R.L. Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Arjun Lall & Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocates, for respondents No. 1 and 2.
.......................................	Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General, with Mr. Anup Rattan & Mr. M.A. Khan, Additional Advocate Generals, and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 3 and 4. ...........................................................................
LPA No. 126 of 2013
For the appellants:	Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General, with Mr. Anup Rattan & Mr. M.A. Khan, Additional Advocate Generals, and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General.
For the respondents:	Mr. R.L. Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Arjun Lall & Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocates, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Surinder Prakash Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 3.

¶6

-: 2 :-

¶7

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral)

¶8

LPA No. 378 of 2012

¶9

This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 13^th July, 2012, made by the Writ Court in CWP No. 2401 of 2009, titled as Cipla Ltd. & another versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners-respondents No. 1 and 2 herein came to be allowed by quashing the Labour Reference Order No. 11-2/93 (Lab) ID/07-Baddi (Annexure PJ to the writ petition) and order, dated 16.06.2009, made by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Shimla (Annexure PQ to the writ petition) (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned judgment").

¶10

Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has questioned the impugned judgment. It appears that the writ petitionersrespondents No. 1 and 2 herein appointed the appellant as a workman on temporary basis due to temporary increase in work in terms of order, dated 6^th April, 2005 (Annexure R-1 to the writ petition) for a period of six months with effect from 6^th April, 2005 to 5^th October, 2005. The said employment came to an end. Thereafter, the appellant moved an application, which was considered on 28^th October, 2005 (Annexure PB to the writ petition) and he was directed to undergo a training for a period of two years with effect from 7^th November, 2005 to 6^th November, 2007. He was undergoing the training and his training period was withdrawn/ cancelled, constraining him to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The Labour Court made the order, which was questioned before the Writ Court and the Writ Court allowed the writ petition

¶11

-: 3 :-

¶12

by holding that the appellant was not a workman.

¶13

The appellant was not in position as a workman. He has also not sought any appropriate remedy after his engagement came to an end in terms of the engagement order (Annexure R-1) (supra) and he accepted his induction as a trainee in terms of Annexure PB (supra), but joined late, was also found absent. He was not performing any job or duty as a workman, but was undergoing training as a trainee. He does not fall within the definition of "workman" as per the Labour Laws applicable.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant failed to carve out a case and to establish the relationship of the appellant and respondents No. 1 & 2 as workman and an employer.

¶15

The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the appellant was not a "workman" at the relevant point of time.

¶16

We have gone through the impugned judgment, is well reasoned and needs no interference.

¶17

Accordingly, the impugned judgment is upheld and the appeal is dismissed alongwith all pending applications.

¶18

LPA No. 126 of 2013

¶19

In view of the dismissal of LPA No. 378 of 2012, this appeal is also disposed of alongwith all pending applications.

¶20

(Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Chief Justice

¶21

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

¶22

December 9, 2014 ( rajni )

Labour Commissioner v. Cipla Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Labour Commissioner v. Cipla Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parkash Chand Vs State of Hp

Dr. Ved Parkash Patial Vs H.P. Technical University

Mohit Sharma Vs State of Hp

Nirmala Thakur Vs H.P.U

Pardeep Kumar Vs Cipla Ltd.

Pankaj Kumar Vs State