IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.7455 of 2023 Decided on 18th September, 2025 Bhag Singh …Petitioner Versus Divisional Forest Officer …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Naresh Verma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- A. That the impugned award dated 15.12.2022 vide Annexure P-1, passed by the learned Labour Court Cum Industrial Tribunal Dharamshala in Reference No. 467/2016 titled as Bhag Singh Vs. The Divisional Forest Officer, Suket Forest Division may kindly be quashed and set aside or modified and the petitioner may be re-instatement along-with all consequential benefits like seniority, back wages and past service benefits from the date of initial engagement and further regularization at least from the date when the persons junior to the of petitioner were considered. B. Or the respondents may be directed to re-engage the petitioner in the analogy of Award in Ref. No.357/2016 titled as Harish Kumar Vs State of H.P. 2 C. Or That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct respondents to pay the compensation at least to the tune of Rupees 10,00,000/- (Ten lakhs along- with interest @ 12% from the date of filing the demand notice at least.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Labour Court, in terms whereof, though the claim petition filed by the petitioner was allowed, but rather than ordering the reinstatement, compensation of Rs.75,000/- was ordered to be paid to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned award is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that the findings returned by the learned Labour Court on the issue of delay and laches to deny him reinstatement are per se incorrect. He submits that it is not as if the petitioner was sleeping over his rights. Learned counsel stated that after the services of the petitioner were disengaged in the year 2002 he raised an industrial dispute in the year 2004. The claim of the petitioner was rejected in the year 2007, but this rejection was never conveyed to him. In these circumstance, he again raised an industrial dispute in the year 2011. This was again rejected in the 2013. The petitioner thereafter, approached this Court by way of a writ petition and pursuant to the directions 3 passed in the writ petition, Reference was made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court which stood answered in terms of the impugned award. Accordingly, he submits that as these important aspects of the matter have been completely ignored by the learned Labour Court, the award passed by the learned Labour Court be modified and the respondent be directed to reengage the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, learned Additional General submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order for the reason that as it was a matter of record that the dispute was raised by the petitioner after nine years as from the date of his disengagement, learned Labour Court correctly granted the relief as has been awarded. He contended that in the light of the fact that the petitioner had put in just 96 days in the year 2002, 22 days in the year 2001 and 79 days in the year 2000, there was no occasion for the learned Labour Court to have had ordered the reengagement of the petitioner. Accordingly, he prayed that as there is no merit in the petition, the same be dismissed. 4 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General and have also perused the award under challenge as well as the learned Labour Court which is made available for the perusal of this Court. 5. It is a matter of record that the petitioner was engaged by the respondent in the year 1998 and his disengagement is w.e.f. 30.11.2002. Ex. RW-1/B which is the mandays chart of the petitioner demonstrates that in the year 1998 the petitioner had put in 41 days of service, in the year 1999, 283 days, in the year 2000, 79 days, in the year 2001, 22 days and in the year 2002, 96 days. It is also a matter of record that industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner thereafter which was rejected by the Labour Commissioner on 30.10.2007. This is evident from the document mark-E on record before the learned Court below. Similarly, the rejection of the subsequent demand notice of the petitioner is evident from mark-D, which is at Page-69 of the paper book of the learned Labour Court dated 28.05.2013. Why these documents were not taken into consideration by the learned Labour Court is not understood by this Court for the reason that these documents were pertaining to 5 the Department of Labour and Employment and there was no occasion for the learned Labour Court to have had doubted the veracity of these documents, more so in the light of the fact that it was dealing with the claim petition under the Industrial Disputes Act, which is a beneficial legislation to protect the interest of workman. 6. Therefore, as it is apparent and evident that the petitioner was not sleeping over his rights, the findings returned to the contrary by the learned Labour Court are not justified. However, in the light of the fact that the petitioner had not completed 240 days in the preceding twelve months as from the date when his services were terminated or in any of the preceding years, but had completed 240 days only in the year 1999, this Court is of the considered view that ordering regularization of the petitioner as from the year 2002 would also not be an equitable order. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case the respondents engage him afresh forthwith without any seniority and without any back wages etc. 6 8. In the light of the fact that the request made by the petitioner is a genuine one and further as the award passed by the learned Labour Court thus suffers from perversity to some extent, accordingly, this petition is allowed by modifying the award passed by the learned Labour Court to the effect that the respondents rather than paying compensation to the petitioner are directed to engage the petitioner afresh w.e.f. 01.11.2025 as a Class-IV employee on bill base/contract/daily wage basis. Of course this engagement will be without any seniority and without any back wages and would be fresh engagement. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 18, 2025 (Vinod)