Tulsi Ram Dutt vs State of H.P.

V.K. Ahuja, J.—The petitioner was allegedly appointed as driver on daily wage basis with the respondent department since 4.1.1990. As alleged by the petitioner, his services were terminated on 8.2.1991. He filed an Original Application before the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal on 24.7.1991. He was granted interim stay and he continued and thereafter, the stay was vacated. The petitioner raised a demand notice before the Labour and Conciliation Officer, who referred the matter to the Labour Commissioner, who ultimately referred the matter to the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court vide its impugned award dated 16.7.2009 Annexure P-2, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner has come up by way of the present petition challenging the said award.

Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents, who filed reply.

It is clear from the impugned award passed by the learned Labour Court that there is nothing to substantiate that the petitioner has worked for 240 days in any calendar year preceding the date of his termination. It has been specifically held by the learned Labour Court on perusal of the record that the petitioner has failed to prove this fact. A prayer is now being made at this belated stage that time be given to the petitioner to place on record the man-days chart. This fact had to be proved before the learned Labour Court, where the case was pending for nearly 4 years and as such, no opportunity can be given to the petitioner at this stage.

In regard to the question that juniors to the petitioner were re-engaged and as such, the petitioner has to be given employment, in the reply filed by the respondent - State, they have pleaded that no juniors were recruited and one person who was recruited as a driver on regular basis and that too since the post was reserved for the S.C. category, for which names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and the said person, namely, Ravi Singh was appointed. There are no facts to substantiate that any junior person was appointed and as such, he is not entitled to be given the employment. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner, which is dismissed accordingly, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.