LAWS(HPH)-2016-12-215

HEM CHAND Vs. STATE OF HP AND ORS

Decided On December 23, 2016
HEM CHAND Appellant
V/S
State Of Hp And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:-

(2.) "Key facts" as emerged from the record are that the petitioner, who was engaged as a daily wager Beldar by respondent No.3 in November, 1987, continued to work as such till 20.1.1990, whereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Driller on higher rate of wages. It also emerge from the record that the petitioner continued to work as Assistant Driller upto 9.2.1994 and thereafter, he was made to work at IPH Sub Division Mandi under the control of IPH Division Mandi up to 14.3.1996. Since respondent No. 3 refrained from issuing musteroll to the petitioner in the year, 1996-97, he approached the HP State Administrative Tribunal, by way of OA (M) No.170/1996.

(3.) The petitioner being aggrieved with the non-issuance of musteroll w.e.f. 15.3.1996 to 30.7.1997 i.e. for 16 months raised a demand under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (In short "the Act"). Pursuant to aforesaid demand notice, labour Officer, Mandi held conciliation proceedings and submitted its finding/reports under Section 12(4) of the Act, recommending that case of illegal cessation of work may be referred to labour Court for adjudication because it is not open for the govt. to go into the merits of the dispute concern as per conditions contained under Section 10 of the Act. However, fact remains that respondent No.2 i.e. The Labour Commissioner, vide communication dated 19.7.2010 (Annexure P-7) ignored the aforesaid recommendation having been made by Labour Officer, Mandi and advised the present petitioner to raise his dispute through some workers Union of IPH department or through group of persons as required under Section 12 (4) of the Act. Vide aforesaid communication; the learned Commissioner further observed that dispute under reference cannot be referred to Labour Court of Himachal Pradesh for adjudication in terms of provisions contained in the Act for adjudication. It would be profitable to reproduce herein below contents of letter dated 19.7.2010 ( AnnexureP-7) as under:-