AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
CMP(M) No.2057 of 2016 in LPA No.61 of 2017
CMP(M) No.2058 of 2016 in LPA No.62 of 2017
For the reasons set out in the applications, delay of 84 days in filing the appeals, which in our considered view, has sufficiently been explained, is condoned. Applications stand disposed of. Appeals be registered. LPA No.61 of 2017 and LPA No.62 of 2017
Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record so made available before us, we are of the considered view that these letters patent appeals need to be dismissed for the reason that the findings returned by learned Single Judge, vide impugned judgment dated 11th April, 2016, passed in CWP Nos.1146 and 1147 of 2016, cannot be said to be illegal or perverse.
It is not in dispute that Davinder Nath, Kishori Lal and Narain Singh, had sought reference of their disputes, which came to be adjudicated upon by the Industrial Tribunalcum- Labour Court, Dharamshala, Camp at Mandi, H.P. Now significantly, in the case of Davinder Nath, the Tribunal directed re-engagement whereas, in the case of Kishori Lal and Narain Singh, the reference was answered in the negative, against the workmen.
It is also not in dispute that award passed in the case of Davinder Nath came to be assailed by the appellants, herein, before this Court, which came to be affirmed in CWP No.710 of 2006, titled Executive Engineer, HPSEB vs. Davinder Nath & another, on 16.6.2007. Relying upon the said decision, learned Single Judge quashed and set aside the award passed by the Tribunal in the case of Kishori Lal and Narain Singh and directed their re-engagement as also held them entitled to the benefits as stand accorded in favour of Davinder Nath.
With vehemence, Mr.Satyen Vaidya, learned Senior Counsel, points out that facts of Davinder Nath and that of Kishori Lal and Narian Singh are distinct and separate. But, in what manner, we do not find the difference to be emanating from the record. All the workmen were engaged in the same circle. They had a common grievance and that being that without any reason, much less justifiable, they were not allotted work, despite it being available and also persons who were junior to them, continued to be engaged and work allotted to them on continuous basis. As such, we see no reason to interference with the impugned judgment. With the aforesaid observations, the appeals are devoid of merit and the same are accordingly dismissed alongwith pending application(s), if any.