IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1121 of 2018 Decided on : 13.07.2026 Beli Ram ...Petitioner Versus The Bhakra Beas Management Board and Ors. …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : None. For the respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Sood, Sr. Advocate with M/s Aman Sood and Suryansh Thakur, Advocates. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (Oral) Admittedly, in the case at hand, the petitioner was engaged as a Carpenter in the Beas Construction Board at Sundernagar on 03.09.1964. His services were terminated on 30.03.1984. The same is evident from the Discharge Certificate (Annexure P-1). 2. The dispute with respect to wrongful termination was raised by the petitioner on 30.09.2015. The conciliation proceedings failed, vide order dated 22.04.2016 (Annexure P- 2). The conciliation proceedings had failed as no amicable 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- settlement could be arrived at inter se the petitioner and the Bhakra Beas Management Board (for short “BBMB”). According to the BBMB, petitioner was employee of the Beas Control Board. Further as per the BBMB, the case of the petitioner was squarely covered by the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in Jaswant Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1980 SC 115, besides the claim being raised was a stale claim. 3. Subsequent thereto, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya on 25.10.2016 (Annexure P-3). According to the Ministry, the claim being raised in the case at hand was raised after a period of 31 years. The claim being stale, according to the Ministry of Labour, was not required to be referred to the Labour court. 4. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the present petition has been filed for quashing of the failure report (Annexure P-2) and the non-sending of the dispute to the Labour Court by the Ministry of Labour/Sharam Mantaralya, vide letter dated 25.10.2016 (Annexure P-3). 5. A detailed reply has been filed by the respondents, wherein, plea of petition being barred by delay and laches has been raised. The claim is stated to be a stale claim. Other -3- than the aforesaid, a detailed reference in the reply has been made to the Jaswant Singh’s case (Supra). The rejection, in terms of Annexure P-3 i.e letter dated 25.10.2016 has been contended to be legal and valid. 6. Heard counsel for the respondents and peruse the pleadings. 7. The petitioner in the case at hand was discharged on 30.03.1984. Admittedly the petitioner raised a dispute before the respondents on 30.09.2015. The conciliation proceedings thereto failed vide order dated 22.04.2016 (Annexure P-2). From a perusal of the conciliation proceedings, it is evident that during the said proceedings, the present respondents had categorically raised the issue of inordinate delay in raising the dispute at a belated stage. Besides the aforesaid, it had been contended on behalf of the respondents that the case of the petitioner was squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Jaswant Singh’s case (supra). Other than the aforesaid, non- impleadment of the Beas Construction Board as a necessary party had been categorically raised, as it was specifically pleaded that the petitioner was not an employee of the Bhakra Beas Management Board. Since no conciliation was possible -4- and hence, a failure report in terms of Annexure P-2 had been passed. Subsequent thereto, in terms of Annexure P-3 there was a refusal on the part of Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralya to refer the dispute belatedly raised after a lapse of 31 years for adjudication to the Labour Court. 8. Rejection, in terms of Annexure P-3 is sought to be supported by placing reliance on an authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in (2015) 15 1 SCC, titled Prabhakar Vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and Anr., wherein it has been categorically held that though there is no limitation prescribed under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, yet the appropriate Government keeping in view the policy of industrial adjudication whereby stale claim should not generally be encouraged or allowed unless there is satisfactory explanation for delay. As entertaining stale claims would result in unsettling the employer’s financial arrangement apart from the obvious risk to industrial peace and may also in some cases cause dislocation of any industry. The relevant extract whereof reads as follow:- “44. To summarise, although there is no limitation prescribed under the Act for making a reference under Section 10(1) of the Act, yet it is for the 'appropriate -5- Government' to consider whether it is expedient or not to make the reference. The words 'at any time' used in Section 10(1) do not admit of any limitation in making an order of reference and laws of limitation are not applicable to proceedings under the Act. However, the policy of industrial adjudication is that very stale claims should not be generally encouraged or allowed inasmuch as unless there is satisfactory explanation for delay as, apart from the obvious risk to industrial peace from the entertainment of claims after long lapse of time, it is necessary also to take into account the unsettling effect which it is likely to have on the employers' financial arrangement and to avoid dislocation of an industry.” In view of the aforesaid position of law and the fact that there exists no plausible explanation of approaching the court at a highly belated stage, in my considered view there exists no infirmity in the act of the Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralya in refusing to refer the dispute to the labour court (Annexure P-3). 9. The petitioner in the case at hand admittedly was enrolled on 03.09.1964 with respect to the construction of Beas Project. The same is evident from the discharge certificate. The construction of the Beas Project was commenced in the year 1960. The same was a joint venture of the composite State of Punjab and State of Rajasthan. The Beas Control Board was established on 10.02.1961. The said -6- Board ceased to exist and its place was taken by Beas Management Board, which was constituted on 01.10.1967. By virtue of first proviso to Section 80(3) of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966, every person who immediately before the constitution of the Beas Construction Board was engaged in the construction of any work relating to the Beas Project became entitled to continue to be so employed by the Beas Construction Board. In this respect, attention is invited to Jaswant Singh’s case (supra). The relevant extract of the same is reproduced herein below:- 24………..The Beas Control Board was established on February 10, 1961 and it is by and on behalf of that Board that some of the petitioners were appointed prior to November 1, 1966 when the Punjab Reorganisation Act came into force. The Beas Control Board ceased to exist and its place was taken by the Beas Construction Board which was constituted on October 1, 1967. The remaining petitioners were appointed by or under the authority of the Beas Construction Board. The position which therefore emerges is that either by reason of the first proviso to section 80(3) under which every person who immediately before the constitution of the Beas Construction Board was engaged in the construction of any work relating to the Beas Project became entitled to continue to be so employed by the Beas Construction Board, or because the appointments were made for the first time by the Beas Construction Board itself, the petitioners became the employees or were employed by the Beas Construction Board. -7- 10. In the aforesaid judgment, there were two sets of petitioners, namely (a) individuals, who were appointed for the purpose of construction, and on completion of Beas project such employees were facing imminent threat of retrenchment from service on account of completion of work projects of Beas Projects and they had approached the Court. In this respect, it would be relevant to refer the relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment. 12. The petitioners were appointed for the purpose of construction and completion of the Beas Project. Most of them have been working as Engineers, Sectional Officers, Accounts Clerks, Teachers, etc. for over 11 years. The construction works of the Beas Project were nearing completion as a result of which, they were under an imminent threat of retrenchment from service. The petitioners came to know that the Central Government had taken a policy decision to retain in service for the purposes of the Bhakra-Nangal Scheme, only such employees who belonged to the services of the Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan Governments and who were serving on deputation in connection with the works of the Bhakra- Nangal Scheme. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions to restrain the Government from enforcing that decision. (b) the other set of employees in Jaswant Singh’s case were work-charged employees. The same is evident from -8- the below mentioned relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment, which reads as follow:- “2…………The 375 petitioners in the remaining three Writ Petitions Nos. 4505, 4536 and 4658 of 1978 are work- charged employees. The petitioners in these three Writ Petitions have already been retrenched. They are industrial employees and there is an Award of 1974 by which their rights have been adjudicated upon. 3.We will deal with the petitions of work-charged employees separately. Their cases stand on an altogether different footing from those of other employees. Our reference to the petitioners' immediately hereinafter will mean petitioners other than work charged employees.” 11. Insofar as the first set of first employees are concerned, in Jaswant Singh’s case (supra) they were held to be employees of the Central Government. In this respect relevant extract of the judgment is being reproduced herein below:- 26. In the light of these provisions, we find no substance in the contention of the Union Government that the petitioners are employees of the Beas Construction Board and not of the Central Government. The constitution of the Beas Construction Board is a matter of administrative expediency provided for by section 80(2), in order to enable the Central Government to act through a statutory agency for the purpose of discharging its functions and obligations under section 80(l). Section 80(3) shows that it is by virtue of the authorisation contained in the notification issued by the -9- Central Government constituting the Beas Construction Board that the Board acquires the power and authority to appoint the staff which is necessary for the efficient discharge of its functions. The Beas Construction Board, in appointing its staff. acts in pursuance of an authority delegated to it by the Central Government or conferred upon it by that Government. In one word therefore, though the appointments of the petitioners may have been made in the name of or on behalf of the Beas Construction Board, they were truly and in substance made for the benefit and at the behest of the Central Government. The staff appointed for discharging the functions of the Board was appointed in order to enable the Central Government to discharge its responsibility under section 80(1) of undertaking the construction and completion of the works of the Beas project. There is therefore no doubt that petitioners are employees of the Central Government. 12. Once the aforesaid set of employees were found to be employees of the Central Government, the question with respect to the condition of service were also examined and it was held that they would primarily be governed by the terms of their respective appointment letter and if they were entitled to benefits of the any rules of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, they could make a representation in that behalf. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment in this respect is reproduced herein below:- -10- “39. To sum up, we are of the opinion that the petitioners are employees of the Central Government. Their conditions of service will be primarily governed by the terms of their appointment but, if they are entitled to the benefit of any of the rules of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1965, they may make representations in that behalf to the appropriate authorities. It is, however, not possible for this Court to grant to the petitioners any of the reliefs claimed by them as arising out of the provisions of the aforesaid rules, including the relief by way of a declaration that they shall be deemed to be in quasi- permanent service under rule 3. We are further of the opinion that the petitioners have no right to be transferred to the services of the Bhakra Management Board, now re-named as the Bhakra Beas Management Board. Lastly, the proposed retrenchment of the petitioners does not offend against the guarantee of equality contained in articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, since the petitioners and the Deputationists belong to two different and distinct classes.” 13. Insofar as the work charged employees are concerned, the relevant extract of the Jaswant Singh’s case (supra) is reproduced herein below:- “We will now proceed to deal with Writ Petitions Nos. 4505, 4536 and 4658 of 1978 in which the petitioners are all work- charged employees. A work-charged establishment broadly means an establishment of which the expenses, including the wages and allowances of the staff, are chargeable to "works". The pay and allowances of employees who are borne on a work- charged establishment are generally shown as a separate sub-head of the estimated cost of the work. -11- The entire strength of labour employed for the purposes of the Beas Project was work-charged. The work-charged employees are engaged on a temporary basis and their appointments are made for the execution of a specified work. From the very nature of their employment, their services automatically come to an end on the completion of the works for the sole purpose of which they are employ- ed. They do not get any relief under the Payment of Gratuity Act nor do they receive any retrenchment benefits or any benefits under the Employees State Insurance Schemes. But though the work-charged employees are denied these benefits, they are industrial workers and are entitled to the benefits of the pro- visions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act. Their rights flow from that special enactment under which even contracts of employment are open to adjustment and modification. The work-charged employees, therefore, are in a better position than temporary servant like the other petitioners who are liable to be thrown out of employment without any kind of compensatory benefits. The record of Writ Petition No. 4505 of 1978 shows that offers of alternative employment were made to the work- charged employees and many of them have accepted those offers. The rule of 'last come, first go' has also been consistently adopted while retrenching the work-charged employees. In fact the work-charged employees possess a unique right as industrial employees since, by reason of section 25J(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the provisions of Chapter VA, "Lay-off and Retrenchment", have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law including standing orders made under the Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act, 1946. There were in all about 36000 work-charged employees working on the Beas Project. Out of them, about 26000 have -12- already accepted retrenchment compensation under the settlement arrived between the workmen and the management in the conciliation proceedings held by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi, under section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. All the 12 unions of which the work-charged employees are members were parties to the said conciliation proceedings. By reason of section 18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, a settlement arrived at in the course of a conciliation proceeding is binding on all persons who were employed in the establishment to which the dispute relates, whether they were employed on the date of the dispute or subsequently. In Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Jatin Chakravorty and ors., it was held by this Court that it is not even necessary, in order to bind the work men to the settlement arrived at before the conciliator, to show that they belonged to the union which took part in the conciliation proceedings, since the policy underlying section 18 of the Act is to give an extended operation to such settlements. In the instant case, all the 12 unions which represented the workmen on the work-charged establishment were parties to the conciliation proceedings. The settlement will therefore bind all the work-charged employees. Apart from the settlement in the conciliation proceedings, an award was made by the Industrial Tribunal, Central, Chandigarh, in Reference No. 2-C of 1971, in an industrial dispute between the work-charged employees of the Beas- Sutlej Link Project, Sundernagar, with which we are concerned, and the management. Under that award, as stated in the award itself, a consent formula was evolved to which the workmen "virtually agreed". The benefits which flow- to the work- charged employees under the aforesaid award dated May 15, 1974, have been accepted by almost -13- all the work- charged employees, involving a burden of about Rs. 3 crores on the employers. Since the work-charged employees are bound by the settlement dated June 28, 1977 effected between them and the management in the conciliation proceedings and since they are also bound by and have accepted benefits under the consent award dated May 15, 1974, they are not entitled to any rights apart from those flowing from the aforesaid settlement and the Award. Special Leave Petition No. 1246 of 1979 which is filed to challenge the Award and C.M.P. No. 2077 of 1979 which is filed for condonation of the delay of over four and half years caused in filing the S.L.P. shall have to be dismissed.” 14. In sum and substance, all work-charge employees similarly situate like the petitioner in the case at hand were held to be bound by the settlement arrived at inter- se the management and the 12 unions, representing the work- charge employees during the conciliation proceedings. In the said judgment, it was made clear that a settlement arrived inter se the union and the management in the course of a conciliation proceeding would be binding on all persons who were employed in the establishment to which the dispute relates, whether they were employed on the date of the dispute or subsequently. Besides the aforesaid, vide consent award dated 15.05.1974 made by the Industrial Tribunal Central Chandigarh in Reference No.2-2C of 1971 between work- charged employees of the Beas-Satluj Link Sundernagar and -14- the Management a consent formula was evolved to which the workmen "virtually agreed". Admittedly the settlement was arrived inter se the trade union and the management on 28.06.1977 and the consent award as has already been stated supra was passed on 19.05.1974. Employees were held entitled to rights emanating from the aforesaid two. It was made clear that they would not be entitled to any rights apart from those which arose from the aforesaid settlement and the Award. 15. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances the petitioner would have to establish a right emanating from either the settlement or the Award detailed supra. From the pleadings no right arising from either the settlement or the Award is discernible in favour of the petitioner. Infraction of a right can only be shown once a right is established. Hence on this account also the petition must fail. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 13th July, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)