Daily wage Beldar illegally retrenched by HPSEB challenged the Labour Court award granting only Rs. 10,000 compensation despite finding retrenchment illegal. The High Court upheld denial of reinstatement due to unexplained delay but enhanced compensation to Rs. 50,000 with interest on default.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:10974 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 3104 of 2014 Reserved on: 18.10.2024
Date of decision : 08.11.2024.
Ram Singh ...Petitioner.
Versus
HPSEB & others
...Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge .
Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge:
By way of instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the award dated 6.12.2013, passed in Reference No. 93 of 2010 by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’), whereby despite holding the retrenchment of petitioner to be illegal, relief by way of payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- only has been granted. Petitioner seeks the relief of reinstatement with consequential benefits.
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
-2-
“Whether termination of the services of Sh. Ram Singh s/o Sh. Lekh Ram workman by the Additional Superintending Engineer, HPSEB(E) Division Bilaspur through verbal orders w.e.f. 26.5.1995 and without following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what back wages, service benefits and relief the above named workman is entitled to?”
-3-
-4-
delay and laches in making the reference on case to case basis. Accordingly, the award dated 26.11.2012 was set aside with directions to decide the issue of delay and laches only afresh. Noticeably, the learned Division Bench also observed that it had not examined the correctness of the decision on other issues in the case.
-5-
retrenchment of the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had kept silent till the year 2003, when he approached the Tribunal for the first time. In the process, the petitioner allowed eight long years to elapse. In this background, no fault can be found with the findings of the Tribunal that unexplained long delay has taken place. It can also be seen that the time elapsed between the date of retrenchment and passing of award by the Tribunal is more than eighteen years. The Tribunal has taken into consideration that for such a long period, the petitioner cannot be presumed to have remained without work. The Tribunal after placing reliance on the judgment dated 16.8.2013 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6795 of 2013 , titled as, Assistant Engineer of Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board Sub-Division, Kota vs. Mohan Lal found that the interest of justice would be served by holding the petitioner entitled to compensation only.
-6-
“20. We are clearly of the view that though Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the reference made under the I.D. Act but delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely an important circumstance which the Labour Court must keep in view at the time of exercise of discretion irrespective of whether or not such objection has been raised by the other side. The legal position laid down by this Court in Gitam Singh that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and the delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute, must be invariably followed.”
-7-
the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded when the workman had worked for a period of six years and Untranchal Forest Development Corporation vs. M.C. Joshi 2007 (9) SCC 353 wherein the workman having worked w.e.f. 1.8.1989 to 24.11.1991 was awarded a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- on the ground that the workman had approached the Conciliation Officer after a period of about five years.
-8-
2010 by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal is modified to the extent that the petitioner is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. The respondents are directed to pay the compensation to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of this judgment, failing which, they shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of this petition i.e. 25.3.2014.
(Satyen Vaidya) 8th November, 2024. Judge (kck)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a workman with a short engagement and eight-year delay in raising the industrial dispute was entitled to reinstatement rather than compensation for illegal retrenchment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Assistant Engineer of Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board Sub-Division, Kota vs. Mohan LalRelied on¶8
Civil Appeal No. 6795 of 2013
Ghaziabad Development Authority & another vs. Ashok Kumar & anotherReferred¶10
2008 (4) SCC 261 · Who else cites this
Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation vs. M.C. JoshiReferred¶10
2007 (9) SCC 353 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Singh
HPSEB
Satyen Vaidya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
