2025:HHC:21480-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9568 of 2023 Decided on: 07.07.2025 Sanjay Kumar … Petitioner Versus Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, H.P.S.E.B. Limited, Joginder Nagar … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed Award, dated 02.04.2022, passed by the Court of learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., in Reference No.552 of 2015, titled as Shri Sanjay Kumar Versus The Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, H.P.S.E.B. Limited, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., in terms whereof, the Reference made by the Appropriate Government was answered by learned Labour Court as under:- “15. In view of my discussion on the above issues, it is held that though there had been violation of Section 25- H of the Act by the respondent in this case but the petitioner had raised demand alter gap of 13 years and his claim has been thus vitiated by delay and latches, hence reinstatement and other consequential benefits cannot be granted in his favour but he is held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.80,000/-(Rupees Eighty thousand only), which would be paid within four 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:21480-DB months by the respondent and from the date of receipt of Award failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay the interest 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of award till the date of its realization. Parties are left to bear their costs.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner raised an industrial dispute and thereupon the following Reference was made by the appropriate Government to learned Labour Court:- “Whether the industrial dispute raised by the worker Shri Sanjay Kumar S/O Shri Parshotam Singh, R/O Village Kas, P.O. Bhararoo, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. before the Senior Executive Engineer, H.P.S.E.B.L., Electrical Division, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. vide demand notice dated 17.06.2013 regarding his alleged illegal termination of services w.e.f. 01.04.2000 suffers from delay and latches? If not, Whether termination of the services of Shri Sanjay Kumar S/O Siri Parshotam Singh, R/O Village Kas, P.O. Bhararoo, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. by the Senior Executive Engineer, H.P.S.E.B.L., Electrical Division, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. w.e.f. 01.04.2000 without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above aggrieved workman is entitled to from the above employer?” 3. As per the claim put-forth by the petitioner, he was engaged by the respondent on daily wage basis w.e.f. 25.03.1988 and 3 2025:HHC:21480-DB he worked upto 31.03.2000, with interruptions when his services were unlawfully terminated without applying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. As per him, the workmen junior to him were retained whereas his services were arbitrarily terminated. 4. The respondent refuted the claim of the petitioner and took the plea that he had worked only for 47 days as form the year 1998 to 2000 and had left the work without informing his superiors and was a habitual absentee. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Labour Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether termination of the services of petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. 01.04.2000 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 industrial dispute raised by the petitioner suffers from delay and latches, as alleged? OPR 4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPR 5. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present case, as alleged? OPR 6. Whether the petitioner is estopped by his act, conduct and acquiescence to file the claim petition, as alleged? OPR 7. Relief.” 6. On the strength of evidence led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, the issues so framed were answered by learned Labour Court as under:- 4 2025:HHC:21480-DB “Issue No.1: Decided accordingly. Issue No.2: Decided accordingly. Issue No.3: No. Issue No.4: No. Issue No.5: No. Issue No.6: No. Relief: Petition is partly allowed awarding lump sum compensation of Rs.80,000/- as per operative part of the Award.” 7. Learned Labour Court held that there was a violation of the provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, but as the petitioner had raised the demand after 13 and this was an issue of delays and laches it held the claimant entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.80,000/-. 8. This Award has been assailed by the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that Award passed by learned Labour Court was bad. He submitted that when learned Labour Court held that there was a violation of the provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, learned Labour Court ought to have had ordered reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits. He accordingly, prayed that this writ petition be allowed and the Award be set aside to the extent that compensation was Awarded to the petitioner and reinstatement of the petitioner be ordered. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the compensation that was awarded by learned Labour 5 2025:HHC:21480-DB Court in favour of the petitioner was otherwise on the higher side as the petitioner was paid compensation of Rs.80,000/- despite the fact that he had worked only for 47 days and further, as there was a delay and that too, huge delay in the raising of the industrial dispute by the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for any relief, as prayed for, in this writ petition. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Award passed by learned Labour Court as well as other documents appended with the pleadings, this Court does not finds any infirmity in the Award under challenge. 12. As the findings returned by learned Labour Court that there was a violation of the provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been assailed by the respondent, therefore, this Court is not making any observation thereupon. However, fact of the matter remains that the industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner after more than thirteen years as has been held by learned Labour Court and this could not be countered by learned counsel for the petitioner. Further, it could also not be demonstrated that the findings returned by learned Labour Court that the petitioner had worked only for 47 days were incorrect findings and not borne out from the record. 13. In the said backdrop of the facts, the grant of compensation of Rs.80,000/- by learned Labour Court cannot be said to be on the lower side and the petitioner should be satisfied with the same, as the said amount is more than reasonable. 6 2025:HHC:21480-DB 14. Accordingly, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 07, 2025 (Rishi) 7 2025:HHC:21480-DB CWP 9562 of 1) He was engaged on 25.12.1994 2) Services were dispensed with on 31.01.2000. Para------ resisted the claim petition and pointed out that the petitioner had worked only for 58 days in a spam of five years in terms of the details which are there in Para-3 of the Award passed by learned Labour Court.