2025:HHC:11923-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3451 of 2020 Decided on: 28.04.2025 Manohar Lal … 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. Lovneesh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, challenged Award dated 18.02.2020, passed by learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., in Ref. No.96 of 2016, titled as Shri Manohar Lal Versus The Executive Engineer, I&PH Division, Padhar, District Mandi, H.P., in which the reference made by appropriate Government was answered by learned Labour Court in the following terms:- “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 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) to the ₹ petitioner in lieu of the reinstatement, back wages, seniority and past service benefits Amount of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:11923-DB 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. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by his illegal termination w.e.f. 31.06.2000, by the employer raised an industrial dispute in the year 2014. The Demand Notice was raised by the petitioner in the year 2014, as has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The following Reference was made by the appropriate Government for the adjudication by learned Labour Court:- “Whether alleged termination of services of Shri Manohar Lal S/O Shri Ganga Ram, R/O Village Kalehar, P.O. Kataula, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. during July, 2000 by the Executive Engineer, 1.& P.H Division, Padhar, District Mandi, H.P., who has worked as beldar on daily wages basis only for 84 days and 110 days in year, 1999 and 2000 respectively and has raised his industrial dispute after more than 13 years, allegedly without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes 3 2025:HHC:11923-DB Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, keeping in view of working period of 84 days and 110 days in year, 1999 and 2000 respectively and delay of more than 13 years in raising the industrial dispute vide demand notice dated 09-09-2014, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above ex-worker is entitled to from employer/management?" 4. Learned Labour Court, in terms of the Award under challenge held the termination of the petitioner to be bad in law and directed the employer to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner in lieu of reinstatement, back wages and seniority etc. with interest. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that when learned Labour Court has returned the findings that termination of the services of the petitioner was bad in law as there was a violation of the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act, the act of learned Labour Court of not ordering the reinstatement of the petitioner is bad in law. He submitted that the petitioner was entitled for reinstatement with seniority and back wages and therefore, as the Award to the extent reinstatement has been denied to the petitioner is bad in law, the same be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that though it is a matter of record that the employer has 4 2025:HHC:11923-DB not assailed the Award, however, it is also a matter of record that the petitioner only served for 84 days in the year 1999 and 110 days in the year 2000. Besides this, he raised the industrial dispute after more than 13 years which was a stale industrial dispute. He, accordingly submits that the petition being devoid of any merit be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the Award passed by learned Labour Court. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner served for 84 days in the year 1999 and for 110 days in the year 2000 and thereafter, the industrial dispute was raised by him in the year 2014. In the absence of there being any challenge to the Award passed by learned Labour Curt, this Court is not going to dwell on the issue of delay in raising of an industrial dispute. 10. Be that as it may, learned Labour Court held the act of the employer to be bad, for the reason that record suggested that certain persons were engaged by the Department after the disengagement of the petitioner. As there is no challenge to these findings also by the employer, therefore, this Court is not going to dwell upon the same. However, the undisputed facts still are that the petitioner, who worked for around 180 days in a period spread over 5 2025:HHC:11923-DB 18 months, raised an industrial dispute after 13 years, which partially has been decided in his favour by learned Labour Court. 11. This Court is of the considered view that in the light of the conduct of the petitioner, wherein he raised in industrial dispute after 13 years and further taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner for 84 days in the year 1999 and for 110 days in the year 2000, the grant of compensation of Rs.25,000/- in his favour is fair and just and the petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement and other co-related reliefs. 12. Therefore, as this Court does not finds any infirmity in the award under challenge, present petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 28, 2025 (Rishi)