2025:HHC:24988 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 11590 of 2025 Decided on : 29.07.2025 Sh. Raj Dev. …Petitioner Versus The Secretary Public Works Department and others. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “(i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued setting aside the impugned order dated 18-05-2023 of the Ld. Labour Court passed in reference number 20/2018 and grant the full back wages to the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that on an industrial dispute raised by the petitioner/ workman, the following Reference was made by the appropriate Government to learned Presiding Judge, Labour 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:24988 Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.:- “Whether termination of the services of Shri Raj Dev S/O Shri Jai Singh, R/O Village Ratkel, P.O. Sajaopiplu, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Division Dharampur, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. w.e.f. 28.02.2004 without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and amount of compensation the above aggrieved worker is entitled to from the above employer?” 3. Learned Labour Court, in terms of Award dated 18.05.2023, in Reference No. 20/2018, titled Shri Raj Dev Vs. The Executive Engineer, answered the Reference as under:- “In view of my above discussions, the claim petition succeeds in part and is partly allowed. The respondent is directed to reinstate the services of the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner is entitled for seniority and continuity in service from the date of his termination. However, the petitioner is also held entitled for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) as token money as back wages, which would be paid within four 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 3 2025:HHC:24988 date of its realization. Parties are left to bear their costs.” 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has assailed the Award. 5. On a query put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to why the petitioner has approached the court after two years as from the date of the passing of the Award, no satisfactory answer was given by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Court further has been informed that the petitioner has otherwise rejoined the service of the respondents and thus it is apparent and evident that filing of this writ petition at this stage is nothing but an afterthought. 6. Therefore, in the light of the fact that there is no plausible explanation in the petition as to why the petitioner has approached this Court after two years as from the date of passing of the Award, the petition is dismissed, as hit by delays and laches. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 29, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)