Shiv Singh & Ors vs The State Of H.P. & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 16042 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
                              LPA No.21 of 2017
                              Decided on: 11th October, 2023
    ______________________________________________________




                                                                          .

    Shiv Singh & Ors.                           .....Appellants
                                       Versus





    The State of H.P. & Ors.                   ...Respondents
    _______________________________________________________
    Coram
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice




    The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
    1
     Whether approved for reporting?
    _____________________________________________________
    For the appellants:
                       r       Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate.

    For the respondents:                   Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with
                                           Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta & Mr. Pranay Pratap
                                           Singh, Additional Advocates General and
                                           Mr. Arsh Rattan & Mr. Sidharth Jalta,



                                           Deputy Advocate General, for respondents
                                           no.1 and 2.




                                           Mr. Daleep Chand,                     Advocate,       for
                                           respondent no.4.





    M.S.Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice (Oral)

This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the

judgment dt. 24.02.2016, passed in CWP no. 6672 of 2010.

2. The Labour Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla

(2nd respondent) on 18.09.2009 refused to make a reference to the

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

competent Labour Court of the disputes between the petitioners and

their employer, as to what should be the age of their retirement.

.

3. The learned Single Judge, however, without going into

the said issue, as to whether 2nd respondent has rightly refused to

make the reference, relied on the decision of another Division Bench

of this Court in LPA no.73 of 2007.

4. In this decision, there was a challenge to certain orders

passed by the authorities under the Industrial Employees (Standing

Orders) Act, 1946, though with regard to the aspect of age of

retirement, but of a different company and not the company in which

petitioners were working.

5. We are of the opinion that the conclusion of the learned

Single Judge that the appellants in this case should get relief based on

what happened in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to

Appeal (c) No.9163 of 2008, preferred against the order dt.

28.11.2007 in LPA no. 73 of 2007, is not proper because the said SLP

no.9163 of 2008 had been dismissed on 05.01.2016 and the issue

raised in the LPA or in the said SLP was with regard to correctness of

the orders passed by the authorities under the Industrial Employees

(Standing Orders ) Act, 1946; and not with regard to whether 2nd

respondent was justified in refusing the reference under Section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the competent Labour Court

.

for adjudication of the dispute between the appellants and their

employer.

6. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The impugned

judgment dt. 24.02.2016, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP

no.6672 of 2010 is set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the

learned Single Judge to decide afresh in accordance with law.

7. List before learned Single Judge immediately after

Dussehra holidays.

8. The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also

stand dispose of.

                                              (M. S. Ramachandra Rao)





                                                   Chief Justice





                                                (Jyotsna Rewal Dua)
    October 11, 2023                                   Judge
         R.Atal