2025:HHC:25021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2528 of 2017 Decided on: 30.07.2025 Nirmala Chauhan … Petitioner Versus The Managing Director, HP Agro Packaging Nigam Vihar, Shimla-2 … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Present none. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) CMP No.18035 of 2025 In view of the averments made in the application, seeking early hearing of the petition, the same is allowed and disposed of. CWP No.2528 of 2017 2. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent is ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. 3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed Award dated 19.06.2017, passed by learned Presiding Judge, H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Shimla, in Reference No.41 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:25021 of 2016, titled Nirmala Chauhan Versus The Managing Director, H.P. Agro Packaging Nigam Vihar, Shimla-2, in terms whereof, learned Labour Court was pleased to reject the claim of the petitioner by holding that the same was stale and belated. 4. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that on an industrial dispute raised by the petitioner, the following Reference was made by the appropriate Government:- “Whether alleged termination of services of Smt. Nirmala Chauhan W/O Sh. Hemant Kumar Verma, R/O Verma Bhawan, Nav Bhaar, shimla171002, H.P. during December, 1994 by the Managing Director, H.P. Agro Packaging Industries Ltd.. Shimla-171002, H.P., who had worked as Clerk on daily wages during July, 1994 to December, 1998 and has raised her industrial dispute after about 16 years, allegedly without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, keeping in view the delay of about 16 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?" 5. In terms of the claim put-forth by the petitioner, she was engaged by the respondents as a Clerk on daily wage basis in the month of July 1994 and she was terminated in the month of December, 1998 without complying with the provisions of the 3 2025:HHC:25021 Industrial Disputes Act, though persons junior to her were continued to be engaged. 6. Respondents were proceeded ex parte before learned Labour Court. 7. On the basis of the material produced before learned Labour Court by the petitioner, learned Labour Court held that in the light of the fact the Demand Notice was raised after sixteen years as from the date of her alleged illegal termination, the claim petition being stale and belated, no relief as prayed for by the petitioner could be granted. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the Award passed by learned Labour Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law, for the reason that learned Labour Court erred in not appreciating that as, ex facie, it was evident that there was a violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act in the course of termination of the petitioner which was verbal, in the year 1998, the petitioner was entitled for the reliefs as claimed. 9. Accordingly, he prayed that the impugned Award be quashed and set aside. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having carefully gone through the impugned Award, passed by 4 2025:HHC:25021 learned Labour Court, this Court is of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned Award calls for no interference. 11. It could not be disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Demand Notice indeed was issued after sixteen years as from the alleged date of illegal termination of the petitioner. Learned counsel could not demonstrate from the record that any material was placed before learned Labour Court to demonstrate that as from the date of termination of the service of the petitioner, upto the raising of the industrial dispute, there was some kind of communication between the parties, in terms whereof, some assurance or re-assurance was being given to the petitioner that she shall be re-engaged and it was on account thereof that she did not raise the industrial dispute earlier. 12. Therefore, as it is evident that the Demand Notice was raised by the petitioner after sixteen years from the date of her termination and in the interregnum, nothing was done by the petitioner to agitate her grievance as was raised by way of the Demand Notice, obviously the claim had become both stale as well as belated. 13. Therefore, as the findings returned to this effect by 5 2025:HHC:25021 learned Labour Court being correct findings in the backdrop of the factual matrix involved in this case, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the same and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 30, 2025 (Rishi)