Parveen Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Petitioner desires a direction to be issued to the respondent-Irrigation and Public Health Department to correctly implement an Award passed by the learned Labour Court on 18.06.2011. According to the petitioner, this award was not properly implemented by the respondents in the year 2012. Its strict implementation would fetch him, his due seniority and other consequential benefits. Further consequential directions have also been prayed in the petition.

¶11

2. The projected case of the petitioner is that:-

¶12

2(i) Petitioner was engaged by the respondents on daily

¶13

wage basis on and w.e.f. 15.06.1996. His services were terminated

¶14

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

¶15

2 ( 2025:HHC:5149 )

¶16

on 01.12.1996. In this regard, reference No.81/2007, at his instance, was registered before the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala, in which, the award was passed on 18.06.2011. Learned Labour Court allowed the reference with direction to the respondents to re-engage the petitioner forthwith. It was also held that the petitioner would be entitled to seniority and continuity from the date of illegal disengagement, but without back-wages. The Award dated 18.06.2011 attained finality. ,

¶17

2(ii) Respondents regularized the services of the petitioner vide office order dated 01.05.2012 with immediate effect.

¶18

3. Petitioner’s present grievance stems from his allegation that respondents did not implement the Award correctly. According to the petitioner, respondents had disengaged him on 01.12.1996; As per Award dated 18.06.2011, petitioner was entitled to seniority and continuity from 01.12.1996; But respondents engaged him on 01.05.2012 on a temporary post. Petitioner contends that his representation made in this regard on 07.03.2015 did not yield desired result, hence,he has preferred this writ petition seeking following substantive relief:-

¶19

“That respondents may kindly be directed to adhere to Award Annexure P-1, whereby petitioner has been held to be entitled to seniority and continuity in service from 1.12.1996, i.e. date of his verbal disengagement by further directing the respondents to regularize/charge the services of the petitioner to work on and with

¶20

3 ( 2025:HHC:5149 )

¶21

effect from 1.1.2004 with all the consequential benefits of pay, arrears, seniority along with interest @p.a. and accordingly only fix pay of the petitioner after giving benefits of revision of pay scales from time to time and then to calculate the arrears and pay the same with interest.”

¶22

4. Petitioner’s main grievance is that the respondents did not implement the Aaward dated 18.06.2011 in letter and spirit. That in terms of the aforesaid award, which had attained finality, the petitioner was entitled to seniority and continuity in service from 01.12.1996, whereas the respondents in purported compliance to the aforesaid award, engaged the petitioner on temporary post of Beldar on and w.e.f. 01.05.2012.

¶23

5 . Section 11(9) of the Industrial Disputes Act provides that “every award made, order issued or settlement arrived at by or before Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal shall be executed in accordance with the procedure laid down for execution of orders and decree of a Civil Court under order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure”. In this writ petition filed on 03.03.2025, petitioner alleges faulty implementation by the respondents on 01.05.2012 of the Award passed by the learned Labour Court on 18.06.2011. It has not been explained in the petition as to why the petitioner did not take appropriate remedy for proper enforcement of the Award as he alleges, at the relevant time. Since petitioner’s basic projected

¶24

4 ( 2025:HHC:5149 )

¶25

grievance in this writ petition is against respondents’ alleged faulty implementation of the Award dated 18.06.2011, it was for him to seek appropriate remedy in that regard, at an appropriate stage. It is well settled that in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Writ Court is not to execute the Award passed by the learned Labour Court and that too in the given facts where award alleged to have been not implemented dates back to 18.06.2011 & violation alleged is its faulty compliance on 01.05.2012. No other ground has been urged. Relief as prayed for by the petitioner on the basis of grounds urged by him in this petition, cannot be granted. Accordingly, the present petition fails and is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶26

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶27

07^th March, 2025(rohit)

Parveen Kumar v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parveen Kumar v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogesh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Deepa Thapa Vs the State of Hp and Others

Sanjay Prakash Vs the State of Hp and Others

Nishu Sehgal Vs the State of Hp and Others

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Rakesh Kumar Thakur Vs State of Hp and Others