2025:HHC:6950 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3452 of 2020 Decided on: 17.03.2025 Hoshiar Singh … Petitioner Versus Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Public Health Division, Padhar … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Virender Guleria and Mr. Lovneesh Thakur, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the Award dated 20.02.2020, passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., in Reference No.99 of 2016, titled Shri Hoshiar Singh Versus The Executive Engineer, I&PH Division, Padhar, in terms whereof, the Reference made by the appropriate Government has been answered by the learned labour Court as under:- “30. 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 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand ₹ only) to the petitioner in lieu of the reinstatement. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:6950 back wages, seniority and past service 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 in the aforesaid terms. 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 adjudication of this petition are that on an Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner, the following reference was made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court:- “Whether alleged termination of services of Shri Hoshiar Singh S/O Shri Kishan Chand, R/O Villge Halgarh, P.O. Segli, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. during August, 2000 by the Executive Engineer, I&P.H. Division, Padhar, District Mandi, H.P., who 3 2025:HHC:6950 has worked as beldar on daily wages basis only for 57 days in year 2000 and has raised his industrial dispute after more than 13 years, allegedly without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, keeping in view of working period of 57 days in year, 2000 and delay of more than 13 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. The grievance of the workman before the learned Labour Court was that he was engaged as a daily wager on muster roll basis, in the year 1998 and his services were unceremoniously terminated with effect from 01.08.2000 without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. 4. On the other hand, the defence of the respondents was that besides the claim petition being barred by delay and latches, there was no merit therein as the petitioner had left the work out of his own free will nor he had completed more than 240 days, in the preceding 12 calendar months. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned 4 2025:HHC:6950 Labour Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether termination of the services of petitioner by the respondent during July, 2000 is/was improper 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. 4. Whether the claim petition is bad on account of delay and laches as alleged? OPR. Relief.” 6. On the strength of the evidence led by the parties, the issues so framed were answered as under:- “Issue No.1 Partly affirmative Issue No.2 Lump sum compensation of Rs.15,000/- Issue No.3 No Issue No.4 Negative Relief: Petition is partly allowed awarding lump sum compensation of Rs.15,000/- as per the operative part of the award” 7. Learned Labour Court on the basis of evidence held that the petitioner was not able to demonstrate that he had put in more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months as from the date of his termination. However, learned Labour Court on the basis of record thereafter went on to hold that there was a 5 2025:HHC:6950 violation of first come last go principle as there were many workmen who were engaged after the petitioner by the respondents without calling upon the petitioner to exercise the option of joining the job afresh. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that the State has not assailed the Award passed by the learned Labour Court. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in the light of the fact that now these findings have attained finality that there was indeed a violation of Section 25- H of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Court ought to have had ordered the reinstatement of the petitioner. He further submitted that even otherwise, the compensation which has been awarded to the petitioner is on the lower side. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General and having perused the Award as well as other relevant record, this Court is of the considered view that though there is no infirmity in the Award passed by the learned Labour Court as far as findings returned qua the non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act or the findings returned qua Section 25-H of the Act thereof are concerned. Nor this Court finds any infirmity in the act of the Labour Court of not ordering the reinstatement of 6 2025:HHC:6950 the petitioner because the Industrial Dispute was in fact raised after a very long time. However, this Court still is of the view that in the light of the fact that the petitioner had intermediately worked from the year 1998 up to the year 2000, Rs. 15000/- is too meager a compensation for working with the respondents for a period spreading around 1 ½ year. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by modifying the Award passed by the learned Labour Court to the extent that the compensation is enhanced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.50,000/-, however, the same shall not entail any interest. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 17, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)