IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8625 of 2025 Decided on: 23rd April, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chhobe Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Gupta and Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State. Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner-Workman feels aggrieved against the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by respondent No.3-the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, declining to refer the dispute raised by the petitioner for adjudication to the concerned learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2. Heard. Petitioner alongwith three others sent a demand notice to respondent No.4-Himachal Road Transport Corporation on 12.02.2024 seeking reinstatement in service. The Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Shimla submitted his report on 19.12.2024 in terms of Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, conveying that the industrial dispute so raised by the petitioner could not be settled through conciliation. 3. In the process of examining the report alongwith reply dated 13.11.2024 filed by the employer during conciliation proceedings, respondent No.3 concluded as under:- “………………… It has been concluded that the services of the concerned individuals were engaged by the employer under the skill development scheme. The dispute regarding the reinstatement of services has already been adjudicated and dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh through a common judgment dated 23.06.2023 in CWP No.434/2020, along with 184 other similar writ petitions, addressing the same cause of action. Once a matter has been decided by the Hon’ble High Court, it cannot be entertained or re-examined by this Department for reference on the same cause of action between the same parties.” Respondent No.3 in the impugned order, has himself taken a decision that services of the petitioner were engaged by the employer/respondent No.4 under the Skill Development Scheme; The dispute regarding reinstatement 3 of services stood adjudicated in Civil Writ Petition No.434 of 2020, decided on 23.06.2023; The petitioner had also raised same cause of action; Since the cause of action had already been adjudicated upon against the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition, therefore, the industrial dispute raised by him could not be entertained and cannot be re-examined by the Department. 4. The impugned order passed by respondent No.3 cannot be sustained. In case the petitioner had raised an industrial dispute and the same was alive, it was for respondent No.3 to refer the same for adjudication to the concerned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal. Respondent No.3 could not have himself donned the role of adjudicating authority. It was for the concerned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal to examine the issue as to whether the cause of action raised by the petitioner was covered against him in some binding precedent or not. 5. In view of above, the present writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure P-3) is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to respondent No.3 for considering it afresh in accordance with law for referring the same for adjudication to the 4 concerned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal. This exercise be now carried out within four weeks from today. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua April 23, 2026 Judge Mukesh