Director Ayurveda, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-9 v. The General Secretry, Ayurvedic Plants/Production, Employees
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. The Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at paragraph 16, having regard to the steps already taken by the very same department and the recommendations made to the Government passed the award directing regularization of the services of ten workmen as per the policy of the State Government.…
Judgment
The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. For the petitioners : Mr. R. K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. J. K. Verma, Dy. A.G. For the respondent : Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The respondents in Reference No. 33/2007 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala have come up against the award dated 28.8.2010. The reference reads as follows:- (cid:147)Whether the action of the Director, Ayurveda, H.P., Shimla-9 (2) The Project Officer (Medicinal Plants), Research Institute in ISM, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. to give break in service to Shri Bhumi Singh 2 s/o Sh. Tara Chand, Shri Sansar Singh s/o Sh. Himal Singh, Shri Sarwan Kumar s/o Sh. Rattan Chand, Shri Hem Singh s/o Shri Bhargu Ram, Shri Som Nath s/o Sh. Bhagatu, Smt. Shakuntla Devi w/o Shri Kahan Singh, Smt. Bhagwati Devi w/o Sh. Nagand and Shri Deepak s/o Sh. Kanhiya workmen from time to time w.e.f. year, 1999 and year, 2000 during their service period without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is proper and justified? If not, what relief of break period and service benefits the above aggrieved workmen are entitled to?(cid:148)
#2. The Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at paragraph 16, having regard to the steps already taken by the very same department and the recommendations made to the Government passed the award directing regularization of the services of ten workmen as per the policy of the State Government. There is also direction to pay them the consequential benefits. It was also observed in the award that the workmen had been waiting for several years and the delay occurred only on account of the time taken by the Government to respond to the request made by the Director Ayurveda. Since the award is only for action in implementation of the policy of the Government, we do not find any perversity in the award. The writ petition hence stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary), Judge. March 1, 2012 (PK/kck)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 01 Mar 2012. The bench was DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.