IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.2415 of 2019 Decided on 28th August 2025 The State of Himachal Pradesh and another …Petitioners Versus Sh. Kewal Kumar …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners-State has assailed the award passed by the learned Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal, dated 18.08.2018. 2. I have heard learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned counsel for the respondent. I have also carefully gone through the award as well as the other documents appended with the petition. 3. Facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that feeling aggrieved by his termination in the month of 2 October, 2005, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute Act, on the basis of which, the following reference was made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court:- “Whether termination of the services of Shri Kewal Kumar, S/o Shri Onkar Chand, R/o village Thanpure, P.O. Rajiana (53 miles), Tehsil and District Kangra, H.P. during October, 2005 by the Superintending Engineer, Nationa,l Highway Circle, HPPWD Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P., without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wage, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employer.” 4. In terms of the award passed by the learned Labour Court, it has held that the workman was engaged for 91 days, since his engagement in the year 2004 upto October, 2005. Learned Labour Court further held that there was no violation of the provisions of Section 25(f) of the Industrial Dispute Act but as record demonstrated that certain persons were engaged after the termination of the petitioner and the petitioner was not offered appointment, there indeed was violation of the provisions of Section 25(h) of the Industrial Dispute Act. Learned Tribunal thereafter ordered the reengagement of the petitioner alongwith continuity in service and 50% back wages. 3 5. This Court is of the considered view that in the peculiar facts of this case the grant of continuity in service as well as back wages is not sustainable in law. This is for the reason that admittedly the petitioner worked only for 91 days in a span of about 18 month’s upto October, 2005. In the light of this fact the grant of the benefit of continuity in service as well as 50% back wages is not sustainable. Further, taking into consideration the fact that in the light of the order of reengagement that was passed by the Court, the Department has already reengaged the workman w.e.f. 22.04.2021, this writ petition is disposed of by modifying the award passed by the learned Labour Court to the effect that in lieu of the award passed by the learned Labour Court, the petitioner shall only be entitled for reengagement with effect from the date of the award for the purposes of seniority. Other consequences that ensue from the said date of seniority shall be notional as upto the date of the reengagement. 4 6. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 28, 2025 (Vinod)