2025:HHC:11122 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9327 of 2023 Decided on: 25.04.2025 Shri Ram Kumar … Petitioner Versus The Registrar, Indus Intentional University Bathu … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr.Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Arun Kaushal, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed Award dated 03.06.2023 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Labour Court, in terms whereof, the claim petition filed by the petitioner was allowed by learned Labour Court in the following terms:- “19. In view of my discussion on the above issues, it is held that though there had been violation of Section 25-F of the Act, hence, resinstatement and other consequential benefits cannot be granted in his favour but he is held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), 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 date of its realization. Parties are left to bear their costs.” 2. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, assailing the Award on the plea that in the backdrop of the facts of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:11122 the case as well as the findings returned by learned Labour Court, the petitioner is entitled for reinsatatement with all consequential benefits and the order of grant of compensation is per se bad. 3. When the matter was taken up for consideration earlier, learned counsel for the respondent apprised the Court that the petitioner has already accepted the compensation amount without any objection and in this view of the matter, the petition is not maintainable. 4. In the backdrop of above development, when the case was listed on 27.03.2025, the following order was passed:- “Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the compensation awarded to the petitioner by the learned Labour Court has been paid to him and he has accepted the same without any objection. To enable learned Counsel for the petitioner to have instructions as to how, in these circumstances, the writ petition is maintainable, list this petition after two weeks. Reply to the writ petition be also filed in the meanwhile. List on 25.04.2025.” 5. Today, I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner accepted the compensation awarded to him and that too, after filing of the writ petition, but neither under protest nor by taking leave of the Court to accept the same. This means that he has already accepted the Award, otherwise the petitioner should not have had accepted the compensation and that too without any protest, offered to him by the 3 2025:HHC:11122 respondents. The petitioner cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold in the same breath, that is to say, that on one hand he cannot be allowed to accept the compensation as was granted in his favour by learned Court and also assail the grant of compensation. This Court is making this observation, for the reason that a reading of the writ petition demonstrates that there is no pleading or relief prayed therein in the alternative that the Award amount is on the lower side and same be enhanced etc. 7. Therefore, in the light of conduct of the petitioner, who has accepted the compensation without any protest, as this Court is of the considered view that he has lost his right to maintain this petition, the same is accordingly, dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 25, 2025 (Rishi)