( 2025:HHC:30451 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.530 of 2025 a/w connected matters. Date of Decision:- 02.09.2025 1. LPA No. 530 of 2025 Maan Singh ....Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others ....Respondents 2. LPA No. 525 of 2025 Bhinder Ram ....Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others ....Respondents 3. LPA No. 526 of 2025 Joginder ....Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others ....Respondents 4. LPA No. 527 of 2025 Shashi Bhushan ....Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others ....Respondents 5. LPA No. 528 of 2025. Balo Ram ....Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others ....Respondents 6. LPA No. 531 of 2025 Ratan Chand ....Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others ....Respondents 7. LPA No. 532 of 2025 Baldev ....Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others ....Respondents 2 8. LPA No. 534 of 2025 Subhash Chand ....Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others ....Respondents 9. LPA No. 535 of 2025 Joginder Kumar Singh ....Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others ....Respondents 10. LPA No. 536 of 2025 Roshan Lal ....Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others ....Respondents 11. LPA No. 537 of 2025 Raj Kumar ....Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others ....Respondents 12. LPA No. 538 of 2025 Joginder Kumar ....Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others ....Respondents 13. LPA No. 543 of 2025 Pawan Kumar ....Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others ....Respondents 14. LPA No. 544 of 2025 Kalyan Singh ....Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others ....Respondents 15. LPA No. 548 of 2025 . Gokaran ....Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others ....Respondents 16. LPA No. 563 of 2025 . Puran Chand ....Appellant 3 Versus State of H.P. and others ....Respondents 17. LPA No. 564 of 2025 . Jagdish Kumar ....Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others ....Respondents 18. LPA No.565 of 2025 . Joginder Kumar ....Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others ....Respondents 19. LPA No. 575 of 2025 . Daleep Kumar ....Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others ....Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. I.D. Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hitesh Bali and Mr. J.D. Sharma, Advocates in all the appeal(s). For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Arsh Rattan, Mr. Sidharth Jalta and Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate Generals, for the respondents-State in all the appeal(s). G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). The present Letters Patent Appeals have arisen against the order(s) passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Hitesh Bali and Mr. J.D. Sharma, Advocates in all the appeal(s). For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Arsh Rattan, Mr. Sidharth Jalta and Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate Generals, for the respondents-State in all the appeal(s). G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). The present Letters Patent Appeals have arisen against the order(s) passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 4 No.9282 of 2025 decided on 16.06.2025 out of LPA No.530 of 2025, CWP No.9284 of 2025 decided on 16.06.2025 out of LPA No.525 of 2025, CWP No.9286 of 2025 decided on 16.06.2025 out of LPA No.526 of 2025, CWP No.9572 of 2025 decided on 18.06.2025 out of LPA No.527 of 2025, CWP No.9412 of 2025 decided on 16.06.2025 out of LPA No.528 of 2025, CWP No.9564 of 2025 decided on 18.06.2025 out of LPA No.531 of 2025, CWP No.9410 of 2025 decided on 18.06.2025 out of LPA No.532 of 2025, CWP No.9416 of 2025 decided on 16.06.2025 out of LPA No.534 of 2025, CWP No.9566 of 2025 decided on 18.06.2025 out of LPA No.535 of 2025, CWP No.9568 of 2025 decided on 18.06.2025 out of LPA No.536 of 2025, CWP No.9225 of 2025 decided on 23.06.2025 out of LPA No.537 of 2025, CWP No.9294 of 2025 decided on 16.06.2025 out of LPA No.538 of 2025, CWP No.9408 of 2025 decided on 18.06.2025 out of LPA No.543 of 2025, CWP No.9414 of 2025 decided on 16.06.2025 out of LPA No.544 of 2025, CWP No.9296 of 2025 decided on 16.06.2025 out of LPA No.548 of 2025, CWP No.9598 of 2025 decided on 18.06.2025 out of LPA No.563 of 2025, CWP No.9596 of 2025 decided on 18.06.2025 out of LPA No.564 of 2025, CWP No.9570 of 2025 decided on 18.06.2025 out of LPA No.565 of 2025 and CWP No.9226 of 2025 decided 5 on 23.06.2025 out of LPA No.575 of 2025, whereby the writ petitions have been dismissed, on the ground of a reference being made to the Government after long delay and the Government declining to refer the dispute to the Labour Court for decision. 2. In sum and substance, the order dated 27.04.2024, passed by the Conciliation Officer/Deputy Labour Commissioner, H.P. in the lead case CWP No.9282 of 2025 titled Maan Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others out of which LPA No.530 of 2025 has arisen is being referred to for the purpose of convenience. 3. The reasoning which weighed with the Conciliation Officer/Deputy Labour Commissioner, H.P., to decline the reference was that the dispute was stale and it had faded away with the passage of time and no justification was made to refer the matter to the Labour Court, keeping in view the provision under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, having been raised after 16 years of cause of action. 4. The judgment of Full Bench of this Court passed on 06.01.2011 in CWP No.1486 of 2007 titled Liaq Ram Vs. State of H.P. & others, was referred to, apart from other judgments passed by this Court. It was noticed that the relief, which was 6 prayed for, was against the artificial/fictional breaks from the year 1998 to 2005 and for which the demand notice had been raised in the year 2021 after a lapse of 16 years and thus, it was held that there was no dispute for the intervening period and the condonation at this stage could not be granted. The factum of the workmen-employee having been regularized and having become a regular employee i.e. on 03.10.2013 was also kept in mind while declining the reference. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants-workmen has vehemently submitted that in similar circumstances in CWP(T) No.1129/2008 titled Tarlesh Bali and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 17.05.2010 (Annexure P-7), the learned Single Judge of this Court had set aside the action of respondents of giving artificial/fictional breaks and the artificial/fictional breaks given to the writ petitioners were condoned only for the purpose of seniority. 6. It is further submitted that the writ petitioners are similarly situated also and should be granted the same benefits. Resultantly, the judgment of learned Single Judge had been assailed. 7. We have gone through the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge had relied upon 7 another Full Bench judgment of this Court in Jai Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others 2022 SCC OnLine HP 1020, and reproduced the principles as such and came to the conclusion that the State Government is not a post office and has to apply its independent mind. The fictional breaks as such were given way-back in 1998 to 2005 and the petitioner never felt aggrieved and the case in Tarlesh Bali’s case (supra) was decided way back on 17.05.2010 and even then no dispute was raised and the services were regularized three years later on 03.10.2013 and no grievance was raised at that stage also. The continuous service of 240 days in each calendar year way-back from 2006 onwards had been taken into consideration for regularization at that point of time. It has been noticed that the petitioner is 58 years old and there was no explanation to offer for the delay and the petitioner had also accepted the regularization order in the year 2013 and the application had been filed after eight long years. 8. Placing reliance upon the Bichitrananda Behera Vs. State of Orissa and others (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1307 and in Marinmoy Maity Vs. Chanda Koley and others reported in AIR 2024 SC 2717, the principle of delay and laches as such and the action of the workmen sufferings from unexplained delay 8 and laches and acquiescence were accordingly considered and the petition was dismissed. 9. The law has been settled beyond any anvil of doubt on this aspect way-back in Bombay Union of Journalists and others Vs. the State of Bombay and another, AIR 1964 SC 1617, wherein the Apex Court has held that if the claim made is patently frivolous or is clearly belated, the appropriate Government may refuse to make reference. 10. As noticed in Jai Singh’s case (supra) also, the Full Bench had earlier noticed that the Division Bench, while referring the matter had no justification not to follow the majority view of the Full Bench in Liaq Ram’s case (supra) and any other view which had been taken, including the judgment of Liaq Ram’s case (supra) therefore, must be held to be per incuriam 11. While referring to the judgment of Apex Court in Raghubir Singh Vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar (2014) 10 SCC 301, it was held that though the Act empowers the appropriate Government to refer the industrial dispute for adjudication ‘at any time’, enormous delay would be a significant factor in forming the opinion whether or not the dispute is still alive or has ceased to exist and thus the stale 9 claim as such could not be allowed to be raked up as is now sought to be done. 12. Similarly, the judgments in Workmen Vs. I.I.T.I. Cycles of India Ltd., 1995 Supp (2) SCC 733 was also relied upon apart from the judgments in Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Cooperative-Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society and another, (1999) 6 SCC 82, while noticing that it was the case of dismissal as such and the back-wages as such could be reduced to the extent of 60%. In case reference is made to S.M. Nilajkar Vs. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 27, it has been held that the dispute can be raised at any time but regard to the delay and reasons therefor will have to be kept in mind and it does not mean that power can be exercised without valid reasons. 13. Resultantly, the principles were laid down which had been referred by the learned Single which would go on to show that the factor which has to be taken into consideration is whether or not the industrial dispute “exists” or it has ceased to exist or has ceased to be alive or has become stale or has faded away. 14. It is pertinent to notice that in the representation filed by the writ petitioners, they had been initially engaged as 10 Beldars in Dharwala Sub-Division by the I&PH Department in June, 1999 and regularization, as noticed was done on 03.10.2013 at Chamba after a lapse of 14 years and new I&PH Division Bharmour District Chamba, H.P. was created in which the petitioners, thereafter had been shifted, when they raised the dispute. 15. Reliance can be also placed upon the judgment in State of Karnataka Vs. Ravi Kumar, (2009) 13 SCC 746, that after 14 years, it would be impossible for the person supervising that whether the person had worked or not and the reference was held to be stale. 16. It is thus apparent, that it is the classic case having availed the benefit of regularization in the year 2013 and having been satisfied with the regularization which was on the basis of the then policy, keeping in view the years of service at that point of time and having availed the said benefits, the workmen have slept over their rights. Their acquiescences as such and their giving up their rights does not now permit them to raise the dispute or stale issue which had long faded away on the ground that there were fictional breaks between the year 1998 to 2005 on account of which they would necessarily seek regularization from an earlier date. It is clearly an after thought, in order to get 11 the benefit of regularization from on an earlier period of time and on the basis of legal advice only on account of the fact that certain other persons were successful in Tarlesh Bali’s case (supra). Even between the decision of Tarlesh Bali’s case (supra) and filing of the representation, there is a delay of eleven years. The arguments raised that nobody would be prejudiced if the benefit is granted, is defeated as the petitioners are so eagerly contesting for the same, but the benefit as such is apparently sought for the purposes only to get regularization from an early date even inspite of the fact that it was given way- back in the year 2013. 17. In Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty (2000) 2 SCC 455, the Apex Court as such had set aside the reference made by the Central Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was done after seven years of order dismissing the respondent from service and it was held that when the dispute is stale, the same could not be a subject matter of reference and the power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rationale manner. The said view was followed in Sudamdih Colliery of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Workmen Represented by Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh (2006) 2 SCC 329, wherein it has been held that though 12 there can be no formula for universal application regarding the delay in seeking the reference, but it would depend upon the facts of the individual case and it was noticed that the dispute pertained to the period 1976-77 and had been raised after about a decade and the claimants were thus not entitled to any relief. Resultantly, the matter was remanded to the High Court to consider the matter afresh by taking into account the principle set-out as on the earlier occasion, the reference had been answered in favour of the workmen, which had been upheld by the learned Single Judge and thereafter approved by the Division Bench. Thus, the Apex Court even at the belated stage as such has kept this fact in mind while allowing the Civil Appeals. 18. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that allowing such writ petitions at a belated stage, would open a “can of worms” and therefore, the litigants cannot be permitted as such to take recourse to such methodology having slept over their legal rights at that point of time. 19. The decision thus of the State not to refer the matter to the Labour Court cannot be said to be erroneous in any manner and reasonable view has been taken that the claim was 13 stale and had expired long-back which has also been rightly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. 20. In such circumstances, the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge is in view of the binding precedent of the Full Bench of this Court itself and there is no scope for us to take a different view. The learned Single Judge has as such passed a well reasoned order which does not warrant any interference in appeal. 21. Accordingly, appeals are dismissed alongwith pending application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 2nd September, 2025 (munish thakur)