Smt. Surekha Gupta vs State of H.P. and Others

Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner was deployed in HRTC as Clerk-cum-Typist for a period of one year w.e.f. 23.12.2000 to 28.03.2001, but the services of the petitioner were dispensed with by HRTC. In that respect, the petitioner demanded her reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, Shimla sent a report under sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Commissioner (State of H.P.) who thereon considered the case of the petitioner and found that the dispute was raised after lapse of about 9 years, as such, the matter could not be referred for adjudication before the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Shimla. It also appears that the petitioner was deployed for specific work as per condition of agreement between the petitioner and her employer and the petitioner has raised dispute on 10.06.2010 for dispensation of her deployment in the year 2001. The respondents No. 1 and 2 have considered all the propositions and conditions of the petitioner as well as have also considered the judgment of the Full Bench passed in CWP No. 1486 of 2007, titled Liaq Ram Versus H.P. State Electricity Board decided on 06.11.2011. In view of Liaq Ram''s case (supra) reported in 2012 (2) HLR 581 and in the facts and circumstances, we do not find any scope for entertaining the present writ petition, as such, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.