State Of H.P. & Ors vs Pawan Kumar
2024 Latest Caselaw 13828 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

State Of H.P. & Ors vs Pawan Kumar on 13 September, 2024

Author: M. S. Ramachandra Rao

Bench: M. S. Ramachandra Rao

( 2024:HHC:8525-DB )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

LPA No. 28 of 2018.

.

Reserved on : 9th September, 2024.

Date of Decision : 13th September, 2024.

    State of H.P. & Ors.                                        ....Appellants.

                             Versus
    Pawan Kumar                                                 ....Respondent.

    Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice.

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? No.

For the Appellants: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional

Advocate General.

For the Respondent: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the

judgment dated 29.10.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP

No. 10285 of 2012, whereby award dated 11.06.2012 passed by the

learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal,

Dharamshala (for short "the Tribunal) has been affirmed.

2. A labour dispute raised by the workman (respondent

herein), had made the appropriate government to refer the dispute to the

Tribunal in following terms:-

...2... ( 2024:HHC:8525-DB )

"Whether verbal termination of the services of Shri Pawan Kumar s/o Shri Rat Ram daily wage workman by the Executive Engineer,

.

I.& P.H. Division, Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P. w.e.f.

26.10.2002 without serving him any notice and charge sheet and without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what back wages, service benefits and relief the above named workman is entitled to ?

3. The Tribunal after affording opportunity of being heard to

both the sides, passed the award dated 11.06.2012 inter alia holding the

violation of provision of Section 25(G) and 25(H) of Industrial Disputes

Act by the appellants herein and proceeded to direct the re-engagement

of the workman along with benefits of seniority and continuity in

service w.e.f. 26.10.2010, except back wages.

4. The appellants assailed the aforesaid award before this

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Single

Judge did not find any illegality or perversity in the award passed by the

Tribunal and accordingly upheld the same.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also

gone through the entire record carefully.

6. Learned Additional Advocate General has laid challenge to

the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on the

ground firstly, that the ground with respect to limitation/delay and

laches was not considered and secondly, disproportionality in relief

granted to the workman by the Tribunal has also been ignored.

...3... ( 2024:HHC:8525-DB )

7. We have gone through the impugned judgment passed by

.

the learned Single Judge and we could not find either of the above

grounds having been raised before the said Court. It has not been

alleged in the grounds of appeal that the grounds of limitation and

disproportionality of relief had been raised before the learned Single

Judge and were not considered at all. It being so, we have no other

option but to infer that no such grounds were raised before the learned

Single Judge and in such circumstances, it amounted to abandonment of

the grounds of challenge, if any, by the appellants. Having failed to

raise the said grounds before the learned Single Judge, appellant cannot

be allowed to raise the same in this appeal.

8. Even otherwise, we find no infirmity or illegality in the

judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. It is more than settled that

contours of powers of writ Court to interfere with the awards and orders

passed by the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal under the

Industrial Disputes Act are well defined and limited. The writ Court can

neither sit in appeal over the award nor can enter into the arena to

reappreciate or to reassess the evidence/material relied upon by the

Tribunal except in cases where the award suffers from absolute illegality

or perversity. Reference can be made on this aspect to the judgments

...4... ( 2024:HHC:8525-DB )

passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.G.I. of Medical Education

.

& Research, Chandigarh vs. Raj Kumar, (2001)2 SCC 54,

Management of Madurantakam Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. S.

Viswanathan, (2005)3 SCC 193, Harjinder Singh vs. Punjab State

Warehousing Corporation, (2010)3 SCC 192 and Iswarlal Mohanlal

Thakkar vs. Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. and another, (2014)6

SCC 434. r

9. In result, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is

accordingly dismissed. No order as to the costs.

(M.S. Ramachandra Rao) Chief Justice.

(Satyen Vaidya)

Judge 13th September, 2024.

(jai)