Sh. Lajja Ram and Others vs The State of H.P

Sanjay Karol, Judge

Petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

That the respondents may be ordered to count the period between dis-engagement and re-engagement towards the continuity for conferring work charge status and after counting the said period services of the petitioners may be ordered to be brought on work charge status in terms of Mool Raj Upadhayay Vrs. State of H.P after completion of 10 years of service.

Petitioners'' services were terminated by the respondents, as such they sought relief under provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In terms of award dated 31.8.2000 (Annexure P-1), passed in RefereERnce No. 23 of 1997 by the Presiding Judge, H.P Labour Court, Shimla, petitioners were reinstated with back seniority. It is their grievance that inspite of the same respondents have not considered their services rendered as daily wager between the period 1.1.1980 to 31.12.1985, for 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? the purpose of according benefits of regularisation in terms of prevalent policy(s) framed by the State.

The respondents undisputedly have regularised the petitioners services w.e.f November, 2007.

No doubt, petitioners approached this Court, claiming benefits only in the year 2011 and there has been delay on their part, but then respondents were obliged to uniformly apply its policy of regularisation. As a welfare state, this is the least, which is expected from the Government. Petitioners were forced to litigate not once but twice. Continuity of service has been protected in the award, which undoubtedly has attained finality.

Hence, benefit of work charge status/regularisation has to be accorded in terms of the policy. Petitioners are claiming benefit of ratio of law laid down in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of H.P. and Others, , in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P and others. It is for the respondents to consider applicability of the same to the given facts. As such, there shall be direction to the respondents to take appropriate action by considering the ratio of law laid down in Mool Raj (supra), the award passed by Tribunal and observations made hereinabove. Needful shall positively be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

With the aforesaid observation, the present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.