STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY FORESTS TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SECRETARIAT SHIMLA - 171002, Vs. PAWAN KUMAR S/O SH. ROOP LAL R/O HOUSE NO. 39, BHARARI SHIMLA H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CMP(M) No. 66 of 2012.

(2.) THE State has come up in appeal against the judgment dated 14th July, 2011 in CWP No. 3557 of 2009. The writ petitioner has challenged the award in Reference No. 137 of 2004 of the Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Shimla. The writ petitioner staked his claim for reinstatement and regularization mainly on the ground that seven juniors had already been reinstated and regularized in service. Admittedly, there were only eight workers in the project. Of the eight, seven had gone to the Administrative Tribunal and pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal, all the seven juniors had been continued in service and they were regularized thereafter. The writ petitioner was the only one left in the process. It appears that the petitioner pursued his remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act before the Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Shimla. However, the Labour Court answered the reference in negative. Thus, being aggrieved the writ petition was filed. The learned single Judge, having regard to the factual position referred to above and also on verification of the records, declared that the workman should be deemed to be in service for the purpose of seniority alongwith all other benefits, except back wages. There was also a direction for regularization. Still further, the back wages were limited from 5th October, 2009. When the appeal came up before us, we issued a direction to the appellants to be present before this Court with records to re -verify as to whether all seven juniors have been continued and regularized. It is clear from the records and it is admitted position too, that all the seven juniors have been continued and have been subsequently regularized and the writ petitioner was the only one left in the process. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the view taken by the learned single Judge is just, fair, reasonable and plausible view and we do not find any infirmity, legal or otherwise in the judgment.

(3.) SUBJECT to above, the appeal is dismissed. However, we make it clear that in case the judgment, dated 14th July, 2011 is not implemented within a month from today, the writ petitioner will be entitled to interest @ 15% from 5th October, 2009 and the officers responsible for the delay will be personally liable for the same. In case the interest is paid, as above, the matter shall be reported to the Accountant General for appropriate action. 4. In view of dismissal of the appeal, as above, all pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.