2025:HHC:22390-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 2975 of 2022 Decided on : 07.07.2025 Sh. Pawan Kumar. …Petitioner Versus The Additional Chief Secretary (PW) and others. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) CMP No. 9923 of 2025 In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed and disposed of. CWP No. 2975 of 2022 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the Award dated 19.08.2019, passed by learned Labour Court in Reference No. 157 of 2017, titled Pawan Kumar Vs. The Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, Nirman Bhawan, 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:22390-DB Shimla, H.P and another, in terms whereof the reference made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court was answered by the learned Labour Court as under:- “52. In the light of what has been discussed hereinabove while recording the findings on issues supra, the respondents are hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousands only) to the petitioner in lieu of the reinstatement, back wages, seniority and post service benefits. Amount of compensation so awarded shall be paid by the respondents to the petitioner within four months from the date of receipt of Award failing which the respondents 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” 3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that on an industrial dispute raised by the petitioner, 3 2025:HHC:22390-DB the following reference was made by the appropriate Government to the Learning Labour Court for adjudication:- “Whether alleged termination of the services of Sh. Pawan Kumar S/o Sh Badri Dutt R/o Village Tandoh, P.O. Risa, Tehsil Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi 11.P. during 01.01.2000 by i) the Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, Nirman Bhawan, Shimla, HP (ii) Executive Engineer, Sarkaghat Division, HPPWD Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., who has worked as beldar on daily wages basis and has raised her industrial dispute vide demand notice dated 09.11.2005 after delay of more than 15 years, without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, keeping in view of working period during years 1999 for 157 days respectively and delay of more than 15 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?” 4. The claim of the petitioner was that he was appointed as a daily wager on muster roll basis with effect from 01.06.1999. He worked as such up to 31.07.2000, when his 4 2025:HHC:22390-DB services were disengaged by the respondents, without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). According to the petitioner, his services were unlawfully terminated on 31.07.2000. It was further his case that the principle of First Come Last Go was violated and he could not have been unceremoniously terminated, as he had completed more than 240 days in preceding 12 months, as on the date of his termination of services. 5. On the other hand, the stand of the employer was that though the petitioner was engaged as a Baildar with effect from 01.06.1999 but he worked intermittently up to July, 2000. Thereafter, he left the work on his own. No fictional breaks were given to him. He had not completed 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months. The principle of First Come Last Go was not violated and the petitioner was gainfully employed as an agriculturalist. 6. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the learned Labour Court on 02.11.2018:- “1. Whether termination of the service of petitioner by 5 2025:HHC:22390-DB the respondents w.e.f. 01-01-2000 is/was legal and justified 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 suffers from delay and laches as alleged? OPR 5. Relief” 7. On the strength of the evidence led by the parties, the same were decided as under:- “Issue No.1 : Partly yes. Issue No.2 : Lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,000/- Issue No.3 : Not pressed. Issue No.4 : Negative. Relief : Petition is partly allowed awarding lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,000/- as per the operative part of the award.” 8. Learned Labour Court after holding that the employer had violated the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and further taking into consideration the fact that there was a considerable delay in the petitioner raising the industrial 6 2025:HHC:22390-DB dispute, directed the respondents to pay a compensation of Rs. 25000/- to the petitioner, in lieu reinstatement, back wages, seniority etc. Learned Labour Court categorically held in the Award that there was a violation of the provisions of Section 25- F as well as 25-H of the Act. 9. In the light of the fact that the employer has not assailed the judgment, this Court is not going on the issue of the findings returned by the learned Labour Court qua violation of the provisions of the Act, as they have attained finality. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that as the learned Labour Court rightly held that there was a violation of the provisions of Section 25-F and 25-H of the Act, the grant of compensation Rs.25,000/-, in lieu of the reinstatement was bad and either the petitioner ought to have been reinstated with back wages and all benefits or some reasonable compensation should have been awarded to him. 11. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in the light of the fact that the petitioner had worked only for a few days, in the year 1999-2000, the compensation as has been awarded by the learned Labour 7 2025:HHC:22390-DB Court is reasonable. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and also carefully gone through the Award passed by the learned Labour Court as well as the record of the case. 13. It is apparent and evident from the record that in terms of the man days chart Ex.RW1/B, the petitioner had worked for 314 days, preceding 12 calendar months from 31.07.2000 i.e. the date of the termination of his services. It is also a matter of record that the industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner after more than 15 years. It is clearly proved from the record that the principle of First Come Last Go was violated by the State, as persons who were engaged after the petitioner, were retained, while his services were dispensed with. 14. In these peculiar circumstances though learned Labour Court rightly refused reinstatement and back wages to the petitioner but the Award of Rs.25,000/- only as compensation, is on the lower side in the facts of the case. This Court is of the considered view that a lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- without interest, would have been reasonable 8 2025:HHC:22390-DB compensation. In the light of the fact that petitioner had completed 240 days in preceding 12 months as from the date of termination of his service. 15. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed, by modifying the Award passed by the learned Labour Court to the extent that the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. However, it is clarified that it shall not carry any interest, as till the date of the passing of the judgment and if the said amount is paid to the petitioner within a period of two months as from the date of the passing of this judgment then it shall not carry interest for the said period also. But if the said amount is not paid within a period of two months as from today then the respondents shall pay 6% simple interest on the said amount from the date of this judgment. 16. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 07, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)