IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 5054/2008 ( OA 761/98) Date of Decision : May 03, 2010 Sh. Shamsher Chand Petitioner Versus The Himachal Road Transport Corporation (H.R.T.C.) and another Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. A. K. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) This is the second round of litigation between the parties. In the year 1968 petitioner was engaged with the respondent as cleaner/ conductor on daily wages. His services were terminated on 26.6.1970. He was re-engaged as a cleaner-cum-conductor w.e.f. 18.7.1971. He continued to work as such till 19.11.1974 when his services were again terminated by the respondent. 2. Aggrieved of the same petitioner sought remedy under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and reference made to the Labour Court (Tribunal) Himachal Pradesh, Shimla with regard Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 to petitioner’s illegal termination was answered in his favour vide Award dated 30.3.1991 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. The same was however set aside by this Court in terms of order dated 5.10.1994 (5.12.1994) passed in CWP No. 394 of 1991. The matter was remanded back to the Labour Court for reconsideration. In terms of award dated 22.5.1995, the Labour Court again answered the reference in favour of the petitioner. His termination was found to be illegal. The operative portion of the award reads as under: “Keeping my findings on the aforesaid issue in view, I hold the termination of the petitioner is illegal and unjustified and as such, the same is set aside and the petitioner is ordered to be re-instated as daily wages cleaner-cum-conductor w.e.f. the date of his termination. However, there is no justification for payment of back wages to the petitioner because for complete 14 years the petitioner had been sleeping over his rights and had raised the dispute, in question, only in 1988. Thus, this re-instatement would be without any back wages As such the reference is answered in favour of the petitioner and same stands disposed of. A copy of this award be sent to the government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla -171002 for its due publiction in the H.P. Rajpatra in accordance with law. A copy of this award be supplied to each of the parties free of cost, if applied for. This be consigned to record room after its completion.” 3 3. That the petitioner has been re-instated is not in dispute. The award has attained finality. However it is the petitioner’s grievance that pursuant to his reinstatement he has not been accorded the benefits of the scheme adopted by the respondent for regularizing persons who have completed more than 240 days of service in a calendar year. 4. In effect petitioner is seeking regularization of his services from the date he was eligible to be regularized under the scheme and also when persons junior to him were regularized. 5. The respondents have opposed the petition on the ground that petitioner has mis-conducted himself. He has embezzled public funds. 6. In the instant case this cannot be a ground for not considering the case of the petitioner for regularising him under the policy adopted by the respondent. The existence of the policy for regularization of its employees is not in dispute. The instances of embezzlement and misconduct pertain to the period prior to the termination of his services in the year 1974. His termination, by way of judicial pronouncement has been set aside. He has been re- instated. Admittedly neither any inquiry nor any disciplinary action has been initiated against him. As such petitioner has to be considered for regularization in accordance with the scheme. If ultimately it is found that he does not fulfill the eligibility criteria it is open for the respondent to take a decision in the light of such facts. 4 But however his case for regularization has to be considered on its merit. 7. It has further been argued that the Labour Court had only directed re-instatement without any other consequential benefits. The contention needs to be rejected for the simple reason that consequential benefits, unless specifically barred, flow as a matter of right of an employee. The Labour Court had specifically directed that petitioner be not paid any back wages. The Tribunal had not dealt with other benefits accruing to him as a result of his re-instatement. 8. For the aforesaid reasons the petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regulrisation of his services from the date as he was entitled to in accordance with law. 9. Necessary action be positively taken within a period of twelve weeks from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the order. Petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 03, 2010 (PK)