2025:HHC:27595 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 8708 of 2022 Decided on : 14.08.2025 Narender Kumar. …Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Kishore Pundeer, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court feeling aggrieved by Award dated 26.09.2020, passed by the learned Labour Court, in terms whereof the claim petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that in an Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner, the following Reference was made by the appropriate 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:27595 Government to the learned Labour Court:- “Whether time to time termination of the services of Shri Narender Kumar S/O Shri Prem Singh, R/O V.P.O. Behli, Tehsil Nihari, District Mandi, H.P. during March, 2008 to June, 2011 and finally during July, 2011 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Suket Forest Division, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employer?” 3. In terms of impugned Award, Annexure P-8, dated 26.09.2020, learned Labour Court answered the Reference against the petitioner and dismissed the case. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the Award passed by the learned Labour Court. 5. The Reference made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court, inter alia, was 3 2025:HHC:27595 whether the termination of the service of the petitioner in the month of July, 2011 without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, was justified or not. However, learned Labour Court, in terms of the findings returned from Para 19 onwards of the impugned Award held that because record demonstrated that the petitioner was subsequently also engaged by the respondent in the year 2014 and 2015, it could not be said that the services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondents in contravention of the Industrial Disputes Act and it appeared that the petitioner was not speaking the truth. 6. This Court is of the considered view that this conclusion arrived at by the learned Labour Court, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned Labour Court ought to have had appreciated that when the Industrial Dispute was there, the factual position was that the services of the petitioner stood terminated in the month of July, 2011. That being the case, his subsequent engagement did not condone the said alleged illegal act of the Department and whether said termination was good or bad in law, ought to have been 4 2025:HHC:27595 answered by the learned Labour Court. 7. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that learned counsel for the petitioner stated at the bar that the petitioner had gathered certain information under Right to Information Act which also demonstrated that the respondents were treating the petitioner by violating the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 8. Be that as it may, in the light of the observations made hereinabove, as this Court is of the considered view that the Award passed by the learned Labour Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law, this writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the learned Labour Court to answer the Reference that has been made to it by the appropriate Government. 9. On the request of the learned counsel for the parties, it is further observed that one opportunity be granted to the petitioner as well as the Department to lead any additional evidence, if any such prayer is made before the learned Labour Court. 10. The petition is disposed of, in above-said terms. 5 2025:HHC:27595 Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 14, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)