2025:HHC:15002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 556 of 2022 a/w CMPMO Nos. 569, 570 & 571 of 2022. Reserved on: 19.05.2025 Decided on: 21.05.2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CMPMO No. 556 of 2022 Tansen Sangeet Mahavidalaya & another ......Petitioners Versus Pooja Sharma .......Respondent 2. CMPMO No.569 of 2022 HIMFAUN Film & Arts Pvt. Ltd. & another …Petitioners Versus Manish Verma …Respondent. 3. CMPMO No.570 of 2022 HIMFAUN Film & Arts Pvt. Ltd. & another …Petitioners Versus Dipika Sharma ….Respondent 4. CMPMO No. 571 of 2022 HIMFAUN Film & Arts Pvt. Ltd. & another …Petitioners Versus Ravi Kant ….Respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashok Sood, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Pooja Verma, Advocate. 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? 2 2025:HHC:15002 For the Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Dulta, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Satyen Vaidya, Judge Heard. 2. All these petitions have been heard and are being decided by a common judgment as identical questions of facts and law have arisen. 3. The respondents in these petitions have filed their separate applications under Sections 15 & 16 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short, “The Act”) before the prescribed authority. They are claiming unpaid wages for the periods ranging between December 2015 to April, 2016. 4. The petitioners filed the applications in all the cases filed by the respondents before the prescribed authority with a prayer to dismiss the petitions on the ground that the same were not filed within the prescribed period of limitation and further the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay were not filed. 5. The respondents filed replies to the applications of the petitioners and made averments to the effect that the respondents in the first instance had filed applications 3 2025:HHC:15002 before learned Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, Solan in the month of April, 2016. The proceedings before the said officer continued till 13.12.2016, on which date, the efforts for amicable settlement failed and no conciliation could be effected. With this background, the respondents sought benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 6. The learned prescribed authority vide order dated 23.08.2022 passed separately in all the petitions, dismissed the applications of the petitioners by holding that the respondents were able to make out a case for condonation of delay as they had spent considerable time from April, 2016 to December, 2016 in pursuing their remedy before the Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, Solan. 7. The petitioners have assailed the order dated 23.08.2022 passed by learned prescribed authority by way of these petitions. The questions that arise for consideration of this Court are as under: 1. Whether the prescribed authority could not have condoned the delay without there being applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the respondents? 4 2025:HHC:15002 2. Whether the prescribed authority was justified in granting the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to the respondents? 8. Similar questions have already been decided by this Court vide judgment dated 12.03.2025 passed in CMPMO No. 544 of 2022, titled Tansen Sangeet Mahavidalaya vs. Vikas Sharma and others. 9. In the said case, the facts were identical to the facts of the cases in hand. The employer is the same i.e. the petitioners herein. 10. This Court has upheld an identical order passed by the prescribed authority vide aforesaid judgment dated 12.03.2025. Since, all the facts in the instant petitions are identical to the case CMPMO No. 544 of 2022, different orders cannot be passed in these petitions. 11. Accordingly, all these petitions are decided in terms of the judgment dated 12.03.2025 passed in CMPMO No. 544 of 2022 titled Tansen Sangeet Mahavidalaya vs. Vikas Sharma and others. The reasons and findings recorded in the said judgment shall apply mutatis and mutandis in these petitions. 5 2025:HHC:15002 12. In result, these petitions are dismissed and the impugned orders dated 23.08.2022 passed by learned prescribed authority are affirmed. 13. The petitions stand disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s) if any. (Satyen Vaidya) 21st May, 2025 Judge (GR)