IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 3904 of 2008 Judgment reserved on: 24.11.2010 Date of decision: 30.11.2010 Madan Lal …Petitioner. 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 Petitioner : 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 petitioner has prayed for re-engagement of his services as Chowkidar after setting aside verbal termination of his services by the respondents. The connected prayer is a direction to the respondents to pay enhanced wages to the petitioner including arrears alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was engaged by respondent No.2 in the year 1991. The petitioner performed his duties to the satisfaction of respondent No.2. The engagement of the petitioner with respondent No.2 was governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘Act’). The petitioner had completed 240 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2 days in each calendar year when his services were verbally terminated by respondent No.3 on 8.5.1995 wrongly, illegally. It has been alleged that only a month back prior to termination of petitioner the respondent No.3 had engaged one Kehar Singh who was allowed to work. The respondent No.3 while terminating the services of the petitioner had violated Section 25-H of the Act. The services of the petitioner were terminated in order to adjust the favourites of respondent No.3. 3. The petitioner had earlier filed CWP No. 494 of 1995 in this Court and on 15.5.1995 in CMP No. 943 of 1995 this Court gave interim direction to allow petitioner to continue to discharge the same and similar duties which he had been performing on or before 6.5.1995. CWP No. 494 of 1995 was dismissed on 29.10.1996. 4. The petitioner was paid wages at the rate of ` 26.50 per day. The respondent No.2 had paid wages to the petitioner in contravention of Minimum Wages Act. The petitioner is entitled to enhanced wages of Chowkidar at the rate of ` 45.75 per day. The petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the arrears. 5. The petitioner had worked with respondent No.2 since 1991 onwards as Chowkidar. The petitioner had represented on 11.4.1995 but his representation was not considered. It has been alleged that the services of the petitioner were illegally terminated. The petitioner was not paid wages in accordance with law. 6. The petition was contested by respondent No.2 by filing reply. It has been stated that petitioner has concealed material facts 3 and on this ground alone the petition deserves dismissal. The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It has been stated that petitioner was engaged as daily wage Chowkidar in September, 1991 and remained as such till January, 1992. He had been performing the duties of Beldar on daily wages. The services of the petitioner were not terminated, rather he abandoned the job. Lateron the petitioner continued with respondent No.2 as daily wage Beldar. It has been denied that petitioner is performing the duties of Chowkidar. The petitioner has wrongly procured the certificate of working as Chowkidar from his favourites. The respondent No.2 prayed for dismissal of the petition. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the reply of respondent No.2. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is the case of the petitioner that he was engaged as Chowkidar but his services were verbally terminated by respondent No.3 on 8.5.1995 in order to accommodate his favourites. It has been stated that Kehar Singh who joined a month prior to termination of the services of the petitioner was retained in violation of Section 25-H of the Act. The petitioner has claimed enhanced wages of Chowkidar as per the Minimum Wages Act alongwith arrears and interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The respondent No.2 has produced the record and relevant record has been placed in similar petition CWP(T) No. 3903 of 2008 filed by other two employees which was heard alongwith this petition. The muster-roll for the month of November, 1991 indicates that the petitioner was engaged as Chowkidar by respondent No.2. The petitioner was regularised daily wage Beldar vide order dated 4 11.6.2000 of Director, Urban Development. The respondent No.2 has also produced the joining report dated 14.6.2000 of petitioner addressed to Secretary of respondent No.2. The copy of joining report dated 14.6.2000 has also been placed in CWP (T) No. 3903 of 2008. The joining report dated 14.6.2000 clearly indicates that the petitioner had joined as Beldar with respondent No.2 on 14.6.2000. There is nothing in the joining report dated 14.6.2000 that petitioner had joined as Beldar with respondent No.2 under protest or he joined as Beldar without prejudice to his rights in the present petition. In any case acceptance of petitioner his regularisation as Beldar indicates that there is ring of truth in the stand of respondent No.2 that though petitioner was earlier engaged as Chowkidar but lateron he continued as Beldar. The petition was filed on 27.11.1996 but during the pendency of the petition the petitioner was regularised as Beldar. The petitioner without any objection accepted the offer of regularisation as Beldar. This belies the stand of the petitioner that he had been working as Chowkidar. There is no merit in the petition which is liable to be dismissed. 8. No other point was urged. 9. The result of the above discussion, the petition fails and is accordingly with no order as to costs. The pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. ( Kuldip Singh ), November 30, 2010. Judge. (GR)