2025:HHC:15463 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3351 of 2019 Decided on: 23.05.2025 Biri Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Dy. AG for respondent-State. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the award dated 16.04.2019, passed by learned Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, HP, in Reference No. 731 of 2016, titled as Shri Biri Singh vs. The Executive Engineer, HPPWD (Electrical Division), in terms whereof, the Reference made by the appropriate Government, was answered by the learned Labour Court as under:- “32 In the light of what has been discussed hereinabove while recording the findings on issues supra, the respondent is hereby directed to pay a compensation of ₹10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the petitioner in lieu of the reinstatement, back wages, seniority and past service 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:15463 benefits. Amount of compensation so awarded shall be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within four months from the date of receipt of Award failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of award till realization/deposit of the amount. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. The reference is answered accordingly. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette and the file after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this writ petition are that on an industrial dispute raised by the petitioner herein, the following Reference was made for adjudication by the appropriate Government:- "Whether alleged termination of services of Shri Biri Singh S/O late Shri Densu Ram, R/O Village Manoh, P.O. Bassi, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. during year, 1995 by the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Electrical Division, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., who had worked on daily wages and has raised his industrial dispute after more than 10 years vide demand notice dated 17.08.2005, without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, keeping in view of delay of more 3 2025:HHC:15463 than 10 years in raising the industrial dispute, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above ex-worker is entitled to from the above employer/management?" 3. On the strength of the pleadings of the parties, learned Labour Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent during year 1995 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged? OPP 2. If issue no. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what service benefits the petitioner is entitled to? OPP 3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? OPR Relief.” 4. On the basis of evidence led by the parties, the Issues so framed were answered by learned Labour Court as under:- “Issue No. 1:- Decided accordingly. Issue No. 1:- Decided accordingly. Issue No. 3:- No. Relief:- Petition is partly allowed awarding lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- per operative part of the award.” 5. Learned Labour Court returned the findings that the 4 2025:HHC:15463 workman had worked only in the months of March and April 1995 and he raised the demand notice only in the year 2005. In terms of the record, the petitioner only worked for 47 days in the months of March and April, 1995, which was evident from the Man’s Day Chart Annexure RW-1/B. Learned Labour Court held that therefore there was no violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It thereafter went on to hold that there was no evidence on record from which it could be inferred that the principle of ‘last come first go’ was violated by the employer. However, learned Labour Court held that there was violation of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. 6. The relief granted to the petitioner already stands quoted by me herein above. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General, this Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity with the award under challenge. The petitioner hardly worked for 47 days in two months, i.e. in the Months of March and April, 1995. Thereafter, he raised the industrial dispute after a decade. Violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act has not been proved. As per learned Labour Court, there was violation of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act because when fresh hands were engaged in the year 1998, the petitioner was not given the offer of employment. Said findings returned by learned Tribunal have attained finality, 5 2025:HHC:15463 however, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has worked only for 47 days and had raised the industrial dispute after a decade, the compensation of Rs.10,000/-, as has been awarded by learned Labour Court, in lieu of back wages and reinstatement etc. is reasonable because a workman cannot be given the premium of his own acts of delay and laches. The Court cannot ignore the fact that the workman was not vigilant of his rights and the industrial dispute was raised by him only after 10 years. In this backdrop, this Court finds no infirmity in the award passed by learned Labour Court of granting compensation of Rs. 10,000/- in lieu of reinstatement, back wages and seniority etc. and further this Court does not find any other infirmity in the award under challenge. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 23, 2025 (narender)