Netar Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Justice V.K. Ahuja, J.—The services of the petitioner, who was working as a Beldar in the Irrigation and Public Health Department since 1.1.1992, were retrenched vide notice dated 15.12.1994, issued by respondent No. 2. The said retrenchment order was assailed by some of the workers before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. The matter was then referred to the Labour Court and the order of retrenchment of the petitioner was held to be legal and valid. 2. In the reply filed by the respondents, they have pleaded that the present petition filed by the petitioner was time barred, was not maintainable being res judicata u/s 11 of the CPC and the award of the Labour Court, dated 12.12.1996, has attained finality and the present petition filed after 13 years is now time barred. It has also been pleaded that the case of the petitioner was already disposed of in pursuance of the statement made by the petitioner and others on 22.10.1994.

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 4805 of 2009, titled Lekh Ram versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 16.4.2012, in which the petitioner was also similarly placed as the present petitioner and the learned Single Judge had dismissed the petition holding that there was no material irregularity in the order passed by the Labour Commissioner. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced below:

Now as far as the applicability of Section 25N of the Act is concerned, the same was not urged before the Labour Court and was rejected by this Court. The aspect of "last come first go", as noticed above, has been dealt with by the Labour Court. This aspect has been dealt with by the Labour Court and it is stated that because of the orders passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal, the retrenchment of the workmen was stayed and they have continued in their employment. But, for these order they would not have continued. In these circumstances, the contention of "last come first go" was rejected by this Court. The third contention raised by the workmen that there was delay in payment of compensation, has also been rejected. According to the material placed before the Labour Court vide Ex.R-35 to Ex.R-139, the workmen had accepted the compensation and have not raised this contention before the Labour Court that there was delay in the payment or that the amount was not proper. It is evident that the retrenchment order has been upheld by the Labour Court in its order dated 3.1.1996. The same has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 92 of 1997 vide judgment dated 18.3.1997. It was not open to the workmen to raise fresh demand in view of the facts narrated hereinabove. The issue raised in the demand notice has already been dealt with by the Labour Court and a Division Bench of this Court in depth. The retrenchment of the petitioner dated 16.12.1994 has attained finality after the dismissal of CWP No. 92 of 1997 vide judgment dated 18.3.1997. Thus, there is no illegality or procedural irregularity in order dated 10.9.2009, passed by the Labour Commissioner.

In view of the judgment passed in the aforesaid writ petition, there is no merit in the present petition, which stands dismissed accordingly. All the pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.