Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge(Oral)

The petitioner, by way of present petition, has prayed for the following substantive relief:-

“i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner as Mechanic/Technician w.e.f. 1.12.2000 with all the consequential benefits including promotion, if any, to the full compliance of the award passed by the learned Labour Court, which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Single in its judgment dated 8.1.2013.”

2. The facts, as emerge from the pleadings, are that the petitioner after doing matriculation, did his diploma in the trade of Mechanic (Motor Vehicle) from ITI Solan in July,1999, which was of two years duration. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as apprentice in the respondents-Corporation for one year w.e.f. 01.12.1999 to 30.11.2000. Thereafter his apprentice period was extended for another year w.e.f. 01.12.2000 to 30.11.2001. During this period, the petitioner discharged his duties as Motor Mechanic. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were orally terminated on 04.12.2001. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by his oral termination had filed the Original Application before the learned Administrative Tribunal, but for want of jurisdiction, the petitioner was asked to approach the Industrial Tribunal. When the dispute was not resolved, the State Government had made a reference for adjudication before the Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, H.P., who vide award dated 20.06.2009 (Annexure P-3) had answered the reference and ordered that the petitioner be reinstated in service forthwith with seniority and continuity, but without back wages, after completion of apprentice period w.e.f. 1.12.2000. While making the claim, the plea of the petitioner was that he was engaged as Motor Mechanic with the respondents-Corporation. Despite the award passed in favour of the petitioner, he was not reinstated immediately. Vide office order dated 22.09.2009 (Annexure P-4), he was reinstated in service, but on the post Junior Technician, on contract basis, on the fixed remuneration of Rs.3500/- per month with seniority and continuity, without back wages w.e.f. 1.12.2000, whereas he was to be re-engaged as Motor Mechanic. The petitioner immediately made a representation to the Deputy Divisional Manager of the respondents-Corporation to consider his prayer and offer him appointment as Motor Mechanic, however, when nothing was done, the petitioner had made another representation dated 04.09.2011 (Annexure P-6) to the Managing Director of the respondents-Corporation. However, when no decision was taken on the request of the petitioner, he had approached this Court by filing CWP No.10721 of 2011, titled, Vijender Singh vs. Managing Director and another, claiming that the respondents-Corporation be directed to reinstate him as Motor Mechanic after completion of 8 years of service w.e.f. 04.12.2009 and regularize his services as Motor Mechanic with all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary, seniority etc. The writ petition came to be disposed of on 08.01.2013 (Annexure P-7), directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner and accord him all benefits under the policy framed by the State within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. It was further directed that all monetary benefits as may be found due and admissible shall be disbursed to the petitioner within the aforesaid period, failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @9% per annum, which shall be personally recovered from the erring official(s).

3. The respondents-Corporation feeling aggrieved by the said order had filed LPA No.134 of 2013, titled, HRTC and another vs. Vijender Singh and the same was dismissed on 18.06.2013 (Annexure P-10). After dismissal of the LP