IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 3903 of 2008 Judgment reserved on: 24.11.2010 Date of decision: 30.11.2010 Pritam Chand and another …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and others ....Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. A.G. for respondent No.1. Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. Kuldip Singh, Judge The petitioners have prayed for their re-engagement in service as Parking Fee Collectors after declaring that verbal terminations of the services of the petitioners are wrong, illegal. The connected prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to pay enhanced wages to the petitioners forthwith with arrears and interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they were engaged by respondent No.2 in the year 1992 for the work of collection of parking fee of vehicles parked at bus stand. The petitioners had discharged their duties to the satisfaction of their superiors. The petitioners were workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘Act’) and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 the respondent-Department an Industry. The petitioners had continuously served respondent No.2 for 240 days in each calendar year till their services were terminated by verbal orders on 8.5.1995 by respondent No.3. The verbal terminations of the services of the petitioners are wrong, illegal and in violation of the Act. 3. It has been alleged that Ram Paul, Satish, Sarwan, Prem Dass, Jagdish, Braham Dass and Ram Singh Rana were allowed to continue. The principle of first come last go was not adhered. The respondents wanted to adjust their favourites after terminating the services of the petitioners. 4. The petitioners were paid wages at the rate of ` 26.50 per day against the provisions of Minimum Wages Act. The post of Parking Fee Collector is equal to the post of Clerk. The petitioners are entitled to enhanced wages from time to time. The petitioners made representation to respondents on 11.4.1995. 5. The petitioners had earlier filed CWP No. 493 of 1995 in this Court. In that petition on 15.5.1995 in CMP No. 941 of 1995 the High Court had given direction to respondents to allow petitioners to discharge the same duties which they were performing on or before 6.5.1995, CWP No. 493 of 1995 was dismissed on 29.10.1996. It has been submitted that petitioners had no alternative remedy, therefore, they have filed the petition in the erstwhile Tribunal challenging their verbal terminations and claiming higher wages in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act. The work of Parking Fee Collector is available with the respondents. The petitioners are entitled to regularisation. 3 6. The petition was contested by respondent No.2 by filing reply. It has been stated in the preliminary objections that petitioners have concealed material facts and on this ground alone the petition deserves dismissal. The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it has been submitted that the services of the petitioners were not terminated. The petitioners were getting the wages as per their entitlement. The petitioners were engaged in April 1992 and November, 1992 respectively as Beldars only for the purpose of parking fee collection. The respondent No.2 could not auction the parking fee contract for the year 1992-93 due to interim order passed by the learned Sub Judge, Hamirpur on 30.3.1992. There was no other alternative except to collect the parking fee departmentally by making temporary arrangement and as such the petitioners were engaged as Beldars. 7. The petitioners had abandoned their jobs. The petitioners thereafter continued their jobs of daily waged Beldars. The respondent No.2 had paid wages to petitioners as per their entitlement. The petitioners have no claim for any arrears. The petitioners have wrongly procured the certificate of working as Bus Adda Fee Collector. The petitioners are not entitled to regularisation. The petitioners have filed rejoinder to the reply of respondent No.2. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The case of the petitioners is that they were engaged as Parking Fee Collectors in the year 1992 by respondent No.2. They were not paid wages of Parking Fee Collectors. The respondent No.3 verbally dis- engaged the petitioners on 8.5.1995. The respondent No.3 in order to 4 give benefit to his favourites illegally discriminated the petitioners. The further case of the petitioners is that Parking Fee Collector job is that of Clerk and, therefore, petitioners are entitled to wages of Clerk enhanced from time to time in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act. They have also claimed regularisation as Parking Fee Collectors. The petitioners have claimed arrears of wages with interest. The respondent No.2 has produced the record at the time of hearing. The muster-roll for the month of April, 1992 indicates that the petitioner No.1 was engaged Beldar for collection of parking fee. The muster- roll for November, 1992 indicates that petitioners were engaged as daily wage Beldars for collection of parking fee. Thus petitioners were initially engaged as Beldars on daily wages for collection of parking fee. 9. The respondent No.2 has clearly stated in the reply that in view of interim order passed by the learned Sub Judge on 30.3.1992 regarding parking fee contract, the respondent No.2 had no alternative but to make some arrangement for collection of parking fee departmentally and in these circumstances the petitioners were engaged on daily wages as Beldars for collecting parking fee. The muster-rolls referred to above nowhere indicate that the petitioners were engaged as Clerks. There is no material on record that Parking Fee Collectors are equivalent to Clerks except for bald averments in the petition. In the present case the petitioners were engaged as Beldars. It is a different matter that they were required to perform the work of Parking Fee Collectors. Simply because the petitioners had performed the work of Parking Fee Collectors for some time, it cannot 5 be said that they were engaged as Parking Fee Collectors. The petitioners accepted the offer of engagement as Beldars on muster- roll with open eyes. They cannot be heard to say that they were engaged as Parking Fee Collectors who are equivalent to Clerks. The petitioner No.1 was regularised as Beldar against newly created post vide order dated 11.6.2000 of Director, Urban Development. The petitioner No.2 was regularised as Beldar against newly created post vide order dated 18.8.2007 of Director, Urban Development. The petitioners have accepted their regularisation as Beldars, therefore, now they cannot be heard to say that they were initially appointed as Parking Fee Collectors and are entitled to regularisation as Parking Fee Collectors who are equivalent to Clerks. Once the petitioners have accepted the regularisation as Beldars as noticed above, then nothing is left in their petition for the claim of regularisation as Parking Fee Collectors and wages as Clerks. There is no merit in the petition which is liable to be dismissed. 10. No other point was urged. 11. The result of the above discussion, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. The pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. ( Kuldip Singh ), November 30, 2010. Judge. (GR)