Allowed

State of Hp and Another v. Tara Devi

Himachal Pradesh HC9 Apr 2025CWP/2021/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State challenged a Labour Court award reinstating a daily wage Baildar with continuity and seniority. The High Court found the workman worked only sporadically, raised no dispute during 2004-2009, and that her conduct did not merit relief, so it quashed the award.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Labour Court award dated 22.04.2016 reinstating the workman with seniority and continuity quashed and set aside.

State of Hp and Another Vs Tara Devi — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT

¶2

SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 2021 of 2017 Decided on 09^th April 2025

¶4

The State of Himachal Pradesh and another

¶5

…Petitioners Versus

Smt. Tara Devi

…Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes

¶10

For the petitioners: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.

¶11

For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate.

¶12

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )

¶13

By way of this writ petition, the State has assailed

¶14

the award passed by the learned Labour Court in Reference No.324/2014, decided on 22.04.2016, titled as Tara Devi versus

¶15

The Divisional Forest Officer, Parbati Forest Division Shamshi, District Kullu, H.P., in terms whereof, the Reference made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court was answered by the learned Labour Court in the following terms:-

¶16

¶17

“Whereas time to time termination of the services of Shri Mati Tara Devi w/o Sh. Maghun Ram, R/o village Paha PO Kharihar, Tehsil & District, Kullu, H.P. during year 1996 to year 2010 and finally during April 2010 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Parbati Forest Division Shamshi, District Kullu H.P. without complying with the provision of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employer?.”

¶18

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that an industrial dispute raised by the respondent herein, the following Reference was made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court:-

¶19

¶20

The claim put forth by the claimant before the

¶21

learned Labour Court was that she was engaged as a daily wage Baildar by the Forest Department under Parvati Division

¶22

of Forest at Shamshi, District Kullu, H.P., in the month of September, 1987. According to the claimant she worked as such till the month of April 2010. She had completed more than

¶23

¶24

240 days continuous service during the said period. In the interregnum, the employer gave her fictional breaks with the intent that the claimant does not claim regularization in service.

¶25

In the month of April, 2010 her services were retrenched illegally and unlawfully, which amounted to violation of the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, especially when persons junior to the claimant were retained.

¶26

The stand of the employer before the learned Labour Court was that the claimant was engaged on daily wage basis for seasonal works in the month of September, 1998 in Bhuntar Range and thereafter, as and when the claimant turned up for work, she was enrolled on muster roll basis as per the availability of funds and work intermittently. It was denied by the employer that the claimant was engaged continuously from September, 1987 upto the month of April 2010. It was also the stand of the employer that the claimant abandoned her work in the year 2010 and in fact she had never completed 240 days in any of the calendar year.

¶27

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, Learned Labour Court framed the following issues:-

¶28

¶29

Whether time to time termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent during the year 1996 to 2010 is/was improper and unjustified as alleged? OPP.

¶30

Whether final termination of services of petitioner during April, 2010 is/was improper and unjustified? OPP.

¶31

If issue No.1 or issue No.2 are proved in affirmative, to what service benefits the petitioner is entitled to? OPP.

¶32

Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form as allege? OPP.

¶33

Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present case as alleged? OPR.

¶34

Relief.

¶35

On the basis of the evidence led by the parties to

¶36

prove their respective submissions, the issues were decided as

¶37

under:-

¶38

Issue No.1 : Yes

¶39

Issue No.2 : Yes Issue No.3 : Discussed

¶40

Issue No.4 : No

¶41

Issue No.5 : Unpressed

¶42

Relief: Petition is allowed in part per operative part of the award.

¶43

In terms of the award, learned Labour Court answered the Reference in favour of the workman and

¶44

¶45

directions were issued to the employer to reengage the claimant forthwith and she was also held to be entitled to seniority and continuity in service except back wages. Feeling aggrieved, the State has filed this writ petition.

¶46

I have heard learned Deputy Advocate General for the petitioner-State as well as learned counsel for the respondent and I have also carefully gone through the award as well as the record of the case.

¶47

A perusal of the award demonstrates that learned

¶48

Labour Court in terms of the findings recorded in Para-13 of the award held that the mandays chart Ex. RW1/B demonstrated that the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days in several calendar years and, therefore, it could not be construed that the claimant was a seasonal worker. Learned Labour Court also held that the plea of abandonment has to be proved and, simply because, workman fails to report for duty intermittently cannot be construed to mean that concerned workman has abandoned the job. Learned Labour Court also held that in terms of the record for certain months, muster roll was issued for the entire month and year, whereas, for certain months, no

¶49

¶50

muster roll was issued at all. This in terms of the learned Labour Court amounted to violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned Labour Court also held that workers junior to the claimant were retained, whereas, the claimant was disengaged arbitrarily by violating Section 25(g) of the Industrial Disputes Act. On these basis, learned Labour Court answered the Reference in favour of the claimant.

¶51

This Court is of the considered view that the findings returned by the learned Labour Court are per se not sustainable in law. Learned Labour Court erred in not appreciating that record clearly demonstrated that the petitioner worked for 31 days in the year 1988, 22 days in the year 1989 and thereafter she did not work either in the year 1990, 1991 or 1992. Thereafter, she worked for 61 days in the year 1993, 35 days in the year 1995, 281 days in the year 1996, 173 days in the year 1997, 312 days in the year 1998 and 342 days in the year 1999. In the year 2000, she worked for 268 days and in the year 2001, she worked for 266 days, in the year 2002 for 117 days and in the year 2003 for 89 days.

¶52

¶53

Thereafter, the petitioner did not work from the year 2004 to 2009.

¶54

As in the year 2010, she worked only for 16 days. Learned Labour Court erred in not appreciating that the petitioner did not raise any industrial dispute in between 2004 to 2009. Learned counsel for the respondent could not give any satisfactory answer as to why it was so.

¶55

This Court is of the considered view that had the workman been really aggrieved by the so called fictitious breaks given to her, then, nothing stopped her from raising the industrial dispute after the year 2003, i.e. in between 2004 to 2009. However, she chose not to do so, which demonstrates that she was not aggrieved by any act of the employer till then.

¶56

Thereafter, in the year 2010, she worked only for 16 days and raised the industrial dispute, which led to the Reference being made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court.

¶57

Incidentally, the Reference was made to the learned Labour Court by the appropriate Government in the year 2014.

¶58

¶59

The issue still remains that if the workman was

¶60

really aggrieved by the grant of fictitious breaks to her or the factum of juniors allegedly being retained while she was disengaged, then, why she did not raise the issue in between the year 2004 to 2010 and why did she rake up the issue only thereafter when she served for 16 days in the year 2010. All these aspects of the matter have been ignored by the learned

¶61

Labour Court.

¶62

Learned Court has not appreciated that the conduct of the workman also has to be taken into consideration and in this particular case the conduct of the workman did not entail the relief as was granted to her by the learned Labour Court.

¶63

In the light of the above observations, this writ petition is allowed. The award passed by the learned Labour Court dated 22.04.2026 (Annexure P-1) is held to be bad and quashed and set aside. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶64

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶65

April 09, 2024 (Vinod)

State of Hp and Another v. Tara Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hp and Another v. Tara Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balak Ram Vs the Hptdc and Others

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Hp

Geeta Devi Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another

M/S Himland Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Pushpa Kumari Vs M/S Hfcl Ltd.

Smt. Sharda Devi Vs Rohan Chand Thakur