Devi Singh Vs Divisional Forest Officer

“(i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued quashing the impugned award dated 20.03.2020 (Annexure P-8) for all intents and purposes.

¶14

(ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus Or other appropriate writ order or direction, allowing the claim petition of the Petitioner by declaring the termination of service of the petitioner w.e.f. June 2003 up to 31 December 2008 as null and void and count the said period towards continuity in service for all intents and purposes.

¶15

2

¶16

iii) Accordingly Issue a writ of Mandamus Or other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents department to grant the work charge status/regularization in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.2003 by condoning the fictional break /short fall of 65 days on account of fictional breaks given to the petitioner in the year, 1995, with all consequential benefits, Or in alternative to regularize/grant work charge status to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.2004 with all consequential benefits.

¶17

iv) Issue a writ of Mandamus Or other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents department to re-fix the pay of petitioner w.e.f 1.1.2003 and eligible benefits be released in favour of petitioner along with 12% interest.

¶18

v) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents department to release the retiral benefits (i.e. Pension, Gratuity, Leave encashment etc.) in favour of petitioner with in time bound manner alongwith 12% interest.”

¶19

The petitioner is aggrieved by the award dated

¶20

20.03.2020, passed by learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra, at Dharamshala, H.P., in Reference No.57 of 2017, titled Shri Devi Singh versus The Divisional Forest Officer, Karsog Division, in terms whereof, the claim of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Labour Court.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is a complete misreading and non-appreciation of the

¶22

3

¶23

Reference as well as the facts and material by the learned Labour Court. He submitted that the Reference was limited to the extent as to whether the termination of the services of the petitioner in the year 2003 were justifiable in law or not and the learned Labour Court rather than answering this, dwelled on issues which were not germane for the decision of the Reference and has thus committed grave perversity while passing the impugned order.

¶24

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that as it was borne out from the record that the petitioner was re-engaged from the year 2006 onwards, though, intermittently, till the year 2008 and regularly after 2008 till his superannuation, learned Reference Court rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner.

¶25

To this, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the engagement of the petitioner in the year 2006 was hardly for a few days and his further engagement from the year 2008 onwards was in compliance with the other award that was passed in his favour by the learned Labour Court.

¶26

4

¶27

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

¶28

having carefully gone through the award under challenge, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶29

The Reference that was made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court reads as under:-

¶30

“Whether termination of services of Shri Devi Singh S/o Shri Keshav Ram, R/o village Chalog, P.O. Karsog, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. during year 2003 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Karsog Division, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P., without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes 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?”

¶31

The issues which were framed by the learned Labour Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties are as

¶32

under:-

¶33

1. “Whether the termination of the petitioner by the respondent during the year 2003 is legal and justified as alleged? OPP.

¶34

2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative to what service benefits the petitioner is entitled to? OPR.

¶35

3. Whether the claim petition/reference is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? OPR.

¶36

4. Whether the claim petition has become infructuous as alleged? OPR.

¶37

5. Relief.”

¶38

5

¶39

However, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Labour Court by returning the findings that the man-days chart revealed that the petitioner had worked for the month of November 2006 and had also worked from the year 2008 onwards upto the year 2014 and, thus, it would not be understood as to how the petitioner could have stated that his services were disengaged by the respondent in the year 2003 in a wrongful manner.

¶40

While passing this award, learned Labour Court erred in not appreciating that as the grievance of the petitioner was confined to his illegal termination, which took place as per him in the year 2003, all that the learned Labour Court was to answer was as to whether the petitioner indeed was terminated in the year 2003 and if yes, then, was this termination in consonance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act or not. Subsequent engagement of the petitioner, if any, was of no consequence, as far as the answer of the Reference made to the learned Labour Court by the appropriate Government was concerned. This extremely important aspect of the matter was completely missed by the learned Labour Court while passing

¶41

6

¶42

the impugned award. Therefore, in these circumstances, obviously, the award passed by the learned Labour Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶43

In light of the above observations, this writ petition is allowed. Award under challenge dated 12.03.2020 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Labour Court to decide the Reference strictly in terms made by the appropriate Government i.e., as to whether the termination of the service of the petitioner during the year 2003 was good or bad in law. Pending miscellaneous applications, if

¶44

any, also stand disposed of.

¶45

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶46

August 11, 2025 (Vinod)

Devi Singh v. Divisional Forest Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devi Singh v. Divisional Forest Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arti Devi Vs Dharmender Kumar

Hira Singh Rayta and Anr. Vs Amin Chand and Ors.

Kalpna Kumari and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Hpseb Ltd. Vs Ms Winsome Textile Industries

Prem Singh Thakur Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another

Ramesh Kumar Vs Nipun Jindal