IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.180/2006 Reserved on: 9.5.2008 Decided on.19.5.2008 State of H.P. and another. …Petitioners. Versus Kumari Anchna …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1.no For the petitioners : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Rajnish K. Lal, Advocate vice Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. A challenge has been laid by the State to the award dated 1.9.2005 passed by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the petition are that the State Government has made the following reference to the Labour Court: “Whether the action of Executive Engineer HPPWD, Salooni, Division Chamba, H.P. in not regularizing the service of late Sh. Chaman Singh above 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? no 2 mentioned labourer S/O late Sh. Madho Ram resident of village Ladog Post Office Ladog Tehsil and District Chamba, H.P. from 1.1.1996, when he had completed the period of ten years as regular daily wager on 31.12.1995 as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court due to death of the labourer on 3.6.1996 is valid and legal. If not whether Miss Anchna Kumari dependent family member of the deceased Shri Chaman Singh who completed the ten years regular work on 31.12.1995 is entitled to any financial benefits, profits and full service, regular employment or relief and late Sh. Chaman Singh was entitled to any financial and other benefits for the period of 1.1.1996 to 2.6.1996.” In sequel to the reference made by the State Government, the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the workman for convenience sake) filed a statement of claim stating therein that her father late Shri Chaman Singh had worked as daily wage Mate on muster roll basis in HPPWD continuously with effect from May, 1985 to 2nd June, 1996. He had completed ten years service as on 31.12.1995. He died in harness on 3.6.1996. The workman was offered appointment on compassionate basis as Beldar with effect from 1.8.1996. She has further set out a case in her statement of claim that her father was to be regularized immediately after the completion of ten years service and his legal heirs are entitled to retiral benefits and she was to be regularized on Class-III post and could not be appointed merely as Beldar on muster roll basis. The claim of the workman was resisted by the employer by way of detailed reply. The employer had admitted that the father of the 3 workman had completed ten years service on muster roll basis. The employer denied that the workman was entitled for regular employment and other reliefs sought, i.e. death gratuity, leave encashment and pensionary benefits etc. The Labour Court vide award dated 1.9.2005 directed that the workman’s father Sh. Chaman Singh would be deemed to be a regular employee with effect from 1.1.1996 and was entitled for all consequential benefits including arrears of pay with effect from 1.1.1996 to 2.6.1996. The learned Presiding Judge further held that the workman was entitled for a regular post in Class-III Cadre in the lowest pay scale at the lowest grade with effect from 1.8.1996. The legal heirs of the deceased Chaman Singh were also held entitled for all consequential service benefits as are admissible to the legal heirs of regular employee who dies in harness. The award was to be executed within a period of 90 days. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General had strenuously argued that the award dated 1.9.2005 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He also contended that the Labour Court could not direct the regularization of the workman’s father with effect from 1.1.1996 and his legal heirs could also not be granted benefits by the Labour Court. He further contended that the direction issued by the Labour Court for regular appointment of the workman to Class-III post was not in accordance with law. Mr. Rajnish K. Lal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the workman has supported the award dated 1.9.2005. 4 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully, The workman Ms. Anchna Kumari had appeared as PW-1 before the Labour Court. She had categorically stated before the Labour Court that her father had completed ten years of service with effect from May, 1985 till 3rd June, 1996 and as per the judgment in Mool Raj Upadhya case, he was to be regularized with effect from 1.1.1996. She has also stated that she and other legal heirs of deceased Chaman Singh are entitled to retiral benefits, leave encashment etc. and she was to be offered appointment on regular basis in Class-III cadre and not on muster roll basis. Sh. Pradeep Sharma, Assistant Engineer, Sub Division Bhalai, District Chamba had appeared as RW-1. He had admitted that the workman’s father had continuously worked on muster roll basis for ten years. He has admitted that Shri Chaman Singh was entitled to be regularized with effect from 1.1.1996 in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He had admitted that as per letter Ex.PX sent through forwarding letter Ex.PY, services of one Sh. Jai Ram was regularized on completion of ten years service after his death and his legal heirs were found entitled to consequential service benefits. It has come in the evidence that as per the man-days chart, Sh. Chaman Singh had completed ten years of regular service. The findings recorded by the Labour Court that Sh. Chaman Singh was entitled to regularization with effect from 1.1.1996 are in accordance with law. The same have been recorded by the Labour Court on the basis of the statement of Sh. Pradeep Sharma, 5 Assistant Engineer as well as man-days chart Annexure-A filed with the reply by the employer. The instance of Sh. Jai Ram, who was regularized after his death, has also been cited. Sh. Chaman Singh was bound to be regularized with effect from 1.1.1996 after he had completed ten years of service. The finding of the Labour Court that Sh. Chaman Singh will be deemed to be regular with effect from 1.1.1996 need not be interfered with by this Court. Now, the Court has to consider whether the finding recorded by the Labour Court that Ms. Anchna Kumari was entitled for a regular post in class-III cadre in the lower pay scale or not. The workman has been offered appointment on daily wage basis as Beldar on 21.8.1996 after the death of Sh. Chaman Singh. The appointment has been made on compassionate basis. Sh. Chaman Singh even as per the directions of the Labour Court was to be regularized with effect from 1.1.1996 as ‘T’ mate only i.e. Class-IV post. The workman Ms. Anchna Kumari cannot be held entitled for appointment on regular basis in Class-III cadre. The compassionate appointment is to be given at the lowest level and in the present case since the workman’s father was only working as ‘T’ mate, she could be offered appointment that too on daily wage basis. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General had apprised the Court during the course of hearing that the workman has now been regularized in Class-IV cadre after the passing of the award. Consequently, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of. The finding recorded by the Labour Court to the effect that Sh. Chaman Singh will be deemed to have 6 been regularized with effect from 1.1.1996 with consequential benefits is upheld, however, the finding given by the Labour Court that Ms. Anchna Kumari will be entitled to appointment in Class-III post, is set aside. The award dated 1.9.2005 is modified accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ( Rajiv Sharma), Judge May 19, 2008 *Awasthi*