The State of H.P. vs Roshan Lal

Sureshwar Thakur, J.—The award of the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, rendered in reference petition No. 264 of 2012 is under challenge before this Court. In the impugned award, the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, condoned the fictional breaks administered up to October, 1998, in the daily rated service of the petitioner (respondent herein) under the respondents (petitioners herein). It concluded, on perusal of the evidence on record that the said breaks are wrong and illegal. As a sequel, to its concluding that the fictional breaks in the daily rated service of the petitioner under the respondents upto October, 1998 are illegal, it, consequently, directed the respondents, that, since the petitioner had completed the requisite period of service, for his being considered for regularization, as such, a direction was rendered against the respondents, that, the claim of the petitioner for regularization, be considered in consonance with the policy in respect thereto framed by the respondents.

The respondents have instituted the present writ petition before this Court assailing the award rendered by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala on the ground that the findings rendered by the learned Presiding Judge in the impugned award qua condoning of the fictional breaks administered by the respondents in the daily rated service of the petitioner under them up to October, 1998 are based on surmises and conjectures, also, hence, theirs being anvilled upon no cogent material on record, as such, the findings in respect thereto, are to be set aside and quashed. Secondarily, it is contended that, consequently, the claim of the petitioner of his having completed the requisite period of service for his being entitled for regularization, is falsified.

We have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General at length.

An advertence to Ex. RW1/D, would palpably reveal that in respect of the daily rated workman under the employment of the respondents, who were junior to the petitioner, the respondents had not administered any fictional breaks in their service. In other words, they were permitted or allowed to continuously complete 240 days of service under them in a calendar year. The effect of the aforesaid untenable act, on, the part of the respondents lent momentum or gave fillip to the claim of the aforesaid persons, that junior, to the petitioner, to, claim regularization and hence, they came to be regularized by the respondents, prior in time to the petitioner having come to be regularized in service by the respondents.

Consequently and as a natural concomitant, the respondents cannot, at all portray before this Court that given the nature of the employment of the petitioner under them being of a temporary nature, hence, work was unavailable for the entire period of 240 days in a calendar year, therefore, the breaks in service of the petitioner administered by the respondents are tenable. Rather, in the face of the breaks in the service having not been administered to any of the juniors of the petitioner by the respondents, conveys that the work was available with the respondents, naturally then falsifying the plea aforesaid. As a natural corollary, as aptly concluded by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal that, hence, breaks as administered in the daily rated service of the petitioner under the respondents upto October, 1998, were actuated by malafides. Hence, as further aptly construed by the Labour Court in the impugned award that the fictional breaks necessitated theirs being condoned with a consequent effect of eligiblizing the petitioner to stake a claim for his services being regularized.

The aforesaid discussion spurs an inference that, hence, the consequent and concomitant relief as granted in the impugned award by the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, in as much, as, the respondents, being directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in service, in the face of his juniors having already come to be regularized in service by the respondents, is, a fair, reasonable and tenable view and does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed along with all pending applications, if any. No costs.