Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RANJAN SHARMA
Bihari Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. illegal oral retrenchment violating sections 25f,25g,25h. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. abandonment without 240 days; juniors validly regularized. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
Petitioner, Bihari Lal, a disengaged daily wager, initially filed Civil Writ Petition No. 6609 of 2011 which was transferred to the State Administrative Tribunal and upon abolition of Tribunal, the matter stood re-transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No.674 of 2019, seeking the following reliefs :-
“(i). That the action of the respondents, who has orally terminated the services of the petitioner from the post of Motermate may kindly be set aside and quashed and the respondents may be directed to re-engage the petitioner from the day when his junior persons were engaged (02.11.1989) against such post with all consequential benefits flow therefrom.
(ii). That the respondents may kindly be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.”
FACTUAL MATRIX :
2. Grievance of the petitioner is that he has passed his matriculation in the year 1985 and passed ITI in the trade of Carpenter in the year 1987. It is averred that
21-year unexplained delay in challenging daily wager's oral termination, without pursuing Industrial Disputes Act remedy, constitutes laches and acquiescence, rendering dispute stale and disentitling....
Disputed questions of fact on service breaks for regularization claims cannot be resolved in writ proceedings; must be raised as industrial dispute; delay and acquiescence after 12 years bar relief.
Section 10 reads as reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals.
A significant delay in raising an industrial dispute can render it stale, even in the absence of a statutory limitation period.
Writ court cannot adjudicate disputed service breaks requiring evidence; claimant must pursue industrial dispute remedy; 15-year delay, laches, acquiescence bar regularization/seniority relief.
Courts cannot interfere in a matter after passage of a certain length of time.
The duty of the employer to re-engage the workman and the requirement of substantial evidence to prove abandonment.
It is again on issue of delay where there is no express provision for it. Whereas, in the present case, there is express provision providing limitation to prefer a Reference / claim before the Labour....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
