Himachal Pradesh High Court
Munshi Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 24 November, 2023
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2111 of 2019 Date of Decision: 24.11.2023 _______________________________________________________ .
Munshi Ram .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ... Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Parkash Sharma, Advocate.
of For the Respondents: Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Additional Advocate General.
_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
rt Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated
2.7.2019, issued under the signature of Joint Labour Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, whereby prayer made on behalf of the petitioner to refer the dispute to learned Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, came to be rejected, petitioner approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following reliefs:-
"(i) That the impugned order dated 2.7.2019, Annexure P-3 passed by the respondent No.2 may kindly be quashed and set aside;
(ii) That the respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to make reference of the petitioner to the learned Labour Court for adjudication of the matter on merits."1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2023 20:31:52 :::CIS 22. Pursuant to the notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed reply, wherein prayer made by the petitioner in the instant petition, came to be opposed on the ground of delay and .
laches.
3. Before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court to judgment dated 22.09.2023, passed by Co-ordinate of Bench of this Court in CWP No.2112 of 2019, titled Baru Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, to contend that in similar rt facts and circumstances, office order dated 1.7.2019 passed by Joint Labour Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, thereby rejecting the prayer to refer the dispute to Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal for adjudication on the ground of delay and laches, has been quashed and set-aside and as such, case of the petitioner is required to be considered and decided in light of aforesaid judgment passed by Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Baru Ram case (supra).
4. Having carefully perused the pleadings adduced on record vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that the petitioner in the case at hand as well as petitioners in the case, as detailed hereinabove, are/were from the same department and they were disengaged on the same date by the department, but without complying with the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act. Apart ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2023 20:31:52 :::CIS 3 from above, petitioner herein as well as petitioner namely, Baru Ram in another case raised industrial demands on the same date and both were rejected on the ground of inordinate delay that too by one .
authority i.e. Joint Labour Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, there appears to be merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Baru Ram of case( supra) and as such, no prejudice, if any, would be caused to either of the parties, if the respondents are directed to consider and rt decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment.
5. Consequently, in view of the above, the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Baru Ram case supra are ordered to be made mutatis mutandis applicable in the present case for all intents and purposes.
In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any.
(Sandeep Sharma), Judge November 24, 2023 (shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2023 20:31:52 :::CIS