Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sh. Rajiv Chandel vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 31 October, 2022
Bench: Satyen Vaidya
REPORTABLE/NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 31st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 7697 OF 2013
Between:-
SH. RAJIV CHANDEL S/O SH. LAIQ RAM,
RESIDEN OF VILLAGE TALWARD,
P.O. CHANDPUR, TEHSIL SADAR,
DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.
...PETITIONER
(BY MS. ARCHANA DUTT, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
THROUGH SECRETARY (INDUSTRIES)
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF H.P.,
SHIMLA-2.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES,
GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA-1.
3. THE PRODUCTION OFFICER,
SILK SEED DIVISION,
GHUMAWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.
. RESPONDENTS.
(SH. DESH RAJ THAKUR, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL
WITH MR. MANOJ BAGGA, ASSISTANT ADVOCATE
GENERAL)
RESERVED ON: 20.10.2022.
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 20:32:55 :::CIS
2
DECIDED ON: 31.10.2022.
______________________________________________________________
This petition coming on for pronouncement of
judgment, this day, the Court passed the following:
.
ORDER
By way of instant petition, petitioner has assailed
award dated 01.07.2013 passed by learned Presiding
Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal,
Dharamshala, H.P. (for short, "the Tribunal") in Reference
No. 210/2012.
2. Petitioner raised an industrial dispute and a
reference was made to learned Tribunal by the appropriate
Government in following terms:
"Whether termination of the services of Shri Rajiv
Chandel S/o Sh. Laiq Ram, R/o Village Talward,
P.O. Chandpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur,
H.P. by the (1) The Director of Industries, Shimla-
1 (2) The Production Officer, Silk Seed Division,
Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. w.e.f.
28.8.2008 without complying with the provisions
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and
justified? If not, what amount of back wages, past
service benefits, seniority and amount of
compensation the above worker is entitled to from
the above employer?"
3. Petitioner claimed before the learned Tribunal
.
that he had worked as daily wage Beldar from 3.4.2002 till
28.8.2008 continuously in Silk Centre, Kothi Majher. He
was transferred as daily wage worker to the Government
Seri Culture Centre, Kandrour in March, 2003. Petitioner
thus laid challenge to the termination of his services being
in violation of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4. Respondents, by way of reply filed before the
Tribunal, admitted that the petitioner was engaged as daily
wager w.e.f. 3.4.2002. The respondents further submitted
that the engagement of petitioner was in a project named
as 'Gold Mines'. According to respondents, petitioner had
worked in the aforesaid project on daily wages till
30.6.2004 whereafter his services were disengaged for
paucity of work. Later, petitioner worked purely on contract
basis as Chowkidar at Government Seri Culture Centre,
Kandrour from 1.5.2005 till 28.8.2008. The said
engagement of petitioner was stated to be result of an offer
made by him to work purely on contract basis at the rate
of Rs.1800/- per month. The sanction for the post of
.
Chowkidar, against which petitioner had worked, was
withdrawn on closure of CDV project.
5. Learned Tribunal held that the petitioner worked
from 26.3.2002 to 30.6.2004 on daily wage basis in Gold
Mine Project. Reliance was placed on the mandays chart,
Ext. RW-1/B, pertaining to petitioner. It was also held that
as per seniority list, petitioner was the junior most and
three other persons senior to him were also disengaged
even prior to the disengagement of the petitioner in the
project. Further, it was held that on 2.5.2005 vide letter
Ext.RW-1/E the Incharge, Government Silk Centre,
Kandrour sought permission to engage services of a
Chowkidar on contract basis. The requisite
sanction/permission was accorded on 11.7.2005 vide Ext.
RW-1/F to engage services of Store Chowkidar purely on
contractual basis after inviting the quotations. Three
persons including petitioner submitted their respective
quotations and the rate quoted by petitioner being lowest,
he was engaged as a Chowkidar purely on contract at
Rs.1800/- per month. The services of petitioner as
.
Chowkidar were dispensed with after 28.08.2008 as the
store articles were disbursed/ distributed and there was no
further requirement of such job.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have also gone through the records of the case carefully.
7. It is on record that the petitioner worked on daily
wage basis in Gold Mine Project w.e.f. 03.04.2002 till
30.06.2004. There is nothing to suggest that the petitioner
continued to work in the same project thereafter. Rather,
the record reveals that petitioner remained disengaged
from 30.06.2004 till 01.05.2005, whereafter the
engagement of petitioner was as contract Chowkidar on
specific terms. The engagement of petitioner as Chowkidar
was in pursuance to specific time bound requirement to
manage the stores and such requirement was placed by the
Incharge Government Silk Centre, Kandrour vide letter
Ext. RW-1/E on 02.05.2005. The proposal was accepted by
respondent No.2 vide Annexure RW-1/F dated 11.07.2005.
Resultantly, the quotations were invited for the grant of
work as Chowkidar from interested candidates. The
.
petitioner was one of the three candidates, who submitted
their quotations and the rate of petitioner was found
lowest. Petitioner accordingly was engaged as Chowkidar
by the Incharge, Government Silk Centre, Kandrour on
payment of fixed monthly amount of Rs.1800/-.
8. Thus, the earlier engagement of petitioner in
Gold Mine Project till 30.06.2004 cannot be said to have
continued w.e.f. 01.05.2005, which definitely was a distinct
and separate engagement as Chowkidar on different terms.
Petitioner did not challenge his disengagement from Gold
Mine Project and the decision of respondents in that
respect attained finality. The engagement of petitioner as
Chowkidar was purely contractual and after the work came
to an end, the disengagement of petitioner cannot be said
to be violative of his rights under the Industrial Disputes
Act or otherwise.
9. Learned Tribunal has passed the award after
taking into consideration the material placed on record by
the parties. I have not found any illegality or perversity in
.
the impugned award. The findings recorded by learned
Tribunal are borne from the material on record.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to
take benefit from the cross-examination of RW-1 by
asserting that the said witness had admitted the
continuous employment of petitioner from 26.03.2002 till
27.08.2008. The contentions so raised, however, cannot be
countenanced for the reason that the witness (RW-1) had
also clarified that the petitioner had worked in the Gold
Mine Project till 30.06.2004 and thereafter he worked from
01.05.2005 to 27.08.2008 as Chowkidar on contract.
Hence, there is no continuity in the service. Petitioner
having been disengaged from his daily wage job in Gold
Mine Project had remained silent and had thereafter
accepted the new assignment as Chowkidar on contract
basis without any reservation.
11. It is more than settled that while exercising the
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this
Court is not to sit as Court of appeal over the decisions of
.
Tribunals constituted under special laws. It is only in the
case where the award passed by the Labour Court-cum-
Industrial Tribunal suffers from absolute illegality or
perversity that interference may be required. In the given
facts of the case, no interference is warranted in exercise of
writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
31st October, 2022 (Satyen Vaidya)
(GR) Judge
