IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 3849 of 2008 Date of decision: 22.11.2010 ________________________________________________________________ Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Employees Union. .....Petitioners. Versus Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation. .....Respondent. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: None for petitioner No. 1 despite actual date notice. None for petitioner No. 2. For the respondent: Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate, vice Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. V.K. Sharma, J (Oral). Following order was passed on 13.09.2010: “Petitioner No. 2 has not been served as per the report of the Registry. Consequently, the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation is directed to inform the petitioner No. 2 about the next date of hearing i.e., 18th October, 2010. List on 18th October, 2010.” 2. On 18.10.2010 further time was allowed to the learned counsel for the respondents to comply with the above order dated 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... 13.09.2010 for today. Today the learned vice counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents states at the bar that the information regarding the date of hearing in this matter fixed for 18.10.2010 was duly imparted by the Managing Director of the respondent- Corporation to the petitioner-Union through its General Secretary, Shri Pardeep Sharma. However, none has appeared on behalf of petitioner No. 2. 3. The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs vide para 7(a): “7(a) That the respondents be directed to refund the one day salary for the month of December, 1995 with interest to the employees immediately to the employees/members of Applicant No. 2. 4. In the reply, the respondent has taken the following stand vide para 3: “3. In reply to this para of the OA it is submitted that no such order for deduction of one day salary in December, 1995 was passed by the respondents as wrongly stated in this para of the OA. One day salary contribution for Chief Minister's Relief Fund was taken with the consent of the employees for held of the victims of excessive and incessant rains which left behind the trail of disasters, deaths and destructions in the state in the year 1995. However, unfortunately three- four employees at Manali tried to make it an issue for unnecessary uncalled for conformation with the management and tried to instigate others to raise objection against the contribution. The moment it came to the notice of the respondent No. 2, all the Incharges/Managers of various units in the Kullu-Manali complex of the respondent Corporation were directed to inform the employees working under them to take back the amount of their contribution from the accounts branch, if they so wish ...3... irrespective of the written consent given by them prior to deduction of their contribution from the salary for the month of December, 1995. The amount of contribution collected at Manali was withheld for one month for reimbursement. However, no one turned collect back the amount and thereafter it was send for depositing in the fund.” 5. In case the petitioners still have any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, it will be open to them to approach respondent No. 1 alongwith copy of this judgment within a month, in which case the said respondent will look into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law and justice and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed within another three months. 6. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 22nd November, 2010 (virender)