IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA ON THE 22nd DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021 BEFORE P HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.520 of 2013 Between:-

SH. VINOD KUMAR S/O SH. KRISHAN CHAND, R/O VILLAGE & POST OFFICE AMBOTA, TEHSIL AMB, DISTRICT UNA , H.P.

…...PETITIONER (BY SH. ANUPINDER ROHAL, LEGAL AID COUNSEL)

AND

1. STATE OF H.P.

THROUGHC ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, EDUCATION TO THE GOVT. OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

2. THhE PRINCIPAL, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR GOVT. POLYTECHNIC, AMBOTA, DISTRICT UNA, H.P.

3. THE PRESIDING JUDGE, H.P. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT, KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.

…...RESPONDENTS (BY SH. ASHWANI K. SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH SH. VIKRANT CHANDEL & SH. KUNAL THAKUR, DEPUTY ADVOCATES GENERAL)

This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the following:

O R D E R The reference petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 21.4.2012. Aggrieved., the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.

2. First, the facts may be noticed bri efly:-

2(i). Following reference was senot for adjudication to the learned Labour Court:-

“Whether the verbal termination of the services of Shri Vinod Kumar s/o Shri Krishran Chand by the Principal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Government Polytechnic, Ambota, District Una, H.P. w.e.f. 14-08-2007 without serving charge sheet, without enquiry and without complying with the provisions of The Industrial Doisputes, 1947 is proper and justified? If not, to what back wages, service benefits and relief the above named workman is entitled to?”

2(ii). The petitioner filed the claim petition stating thereihn that his services were engaged as a Beldar/Semi Skilled Worker by the respondents on 11.09.2000 in Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Government Polytechnic Ambota, District Una under the Community Polytechnic Scheme of the Government of India. He worked as such under the scheme. Vide office order dated 12.05.2006, the petitioner was engaged as Semi Skilled Craftsman under the Community Polytechnic Scheme of the Government of India. On 14.08.2007, the respondents verbally terminated the services of the petitioner without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short ‘Act’). Petitioner had completed seven years of continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year. Other similarly situated workers had been retained by the respond.ent in Government Polytechnic Colleges at Sundernagar and Hamirpur. The termination of the services o f the petitioner was an arbitrary and illegal act of the reospondents.

2(iii). The stand of the respondents was that no legal and fundamental right of the petitioner had been infringed. The services of the petitiouner were engaged under a project/ scheme of the Government of India. The work was made available to the petitioner and other similarly situated workmen as per requirement of the scheme on payment of consolidated honorarium. Keeping in view the requirements, services of the petitioner were taken as Semi Skilled Craftsman in terms of order dated 12.05.2006. The H petitioner accepted the terms & conditions contained in the office order dated 12.05.2006. The engagement of the petitioner was co-terminus with the scheme and depended upon availability of funds from the Ministry of Human Resource & Development (MHRD), Government of India. The scheme was closed by the Central Government w.e.f. 31.07.2007 and accordingly, the petitioner and other categories of staff engaged under the scheme were disengaged on 14.08.2007.

2(iv). On consideration of the pleadings, evidence and contentions of the parties, learned Labour Court.-cum- Industrial Tribunal, vide award dated 21.4.2012, held that the appointment of the petitioner as a Semi Skilled Craftsman under office order dated 12o.05.2006 was purely on temporary basis. Office order dated 12.05.2006 provided that engagement of the petitioner was subject to availability