2025:HHC:16610 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9458 of 2023 Decided on: 29.05.2025 The Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Joginder Nagar … Petitioner Versus Smt. Kanta Devi … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner-State has assailed Award, dated 15.06.2023, passed by the Court of learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (Camp at Mandi), in Reference No.323 of 2012, titled as Smt. Kanta Devi Versus The Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., in terms whereof, the Reference made by the Appropriate Government was answered by learned Labour Court as under:- “12. In view of the above, the claim petition is partly allowed The breaks period ie w.e.f. year 1999 to 31.8.2007 is hereby condoned and this period shall be treated towards her seniority and continuity in service. So far as back wages are concerned, she is held entitled for a sum of Rs 75000/- as lump sum for the back wages for the break periods. In order words, it is held that the petitioner shall be presumed to have worked for minimum 240 days in each calendar year commencing 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:16610 from 1999 to 2007. The rest of the consequences of the aforesaid findings of this court shall follow and the respondent department shall act to implement the same accordingly. Parties are left to bear their costs. 13. The reference is answered in aforesaid terms. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette. File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room." 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that on an industrial dispute raised by the respondent/workman, the following Reference was made by the Appropriate Government to learned Labour Court:- “Whether termination of services/giving breaks in services of Smt. Kanta Devi W/O Shri Bhikham Ram. R/O Village Rahnu, P.O. Khaddar, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. from time to time during March, 1999 to 31- 08-2007 by the Executive Engineer, H.PPW.D. Division Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. without complying with 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. The case of the workman/claimant before learned Labour Court was that she was engaged by the Public Works Department, as a daily wager on 06.08.1999 and she continued to serve as such till 31.08.2007, but fictional breaks were given to her, whereas persons junior to the petitioners, whose names were given in Para-2 of the Statement of Claim filed before learned Labour Court, were allowed to continue 240 days in each calendar year. 3 2025:HHC:16610 According to the claimant, the Department stopped granting fictional breaks to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.09.2007. Thereafter, she was allowed to complete 240 days in each calendar year. It is in this backdrop that the Demand Notice was raised by the petitioner which resulted in the Reference quoted hereinabove to be made by the Appropriate Government to learned Labour Court. 4. In the reply to the Statement of Claim, the contentions of the claimant were not admitted. It was denied that any fictional breaks were given to her and further, it was stated that services of the petitioner stood regularized vide order dated 18.08.2015 and she accepted the same without any protest. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Labour Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether giving fictional breaks/ termination of services of the petitioner time to time during March 1999 to 31.08.2007 by the respondent against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is liable to be condoned? OPP. 2. Whether the petition is bad on account of delay and laches as alleged? OPR. 3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR. Relief.” 6. On the strength of evidence led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, the issues so framed were answered by learned Labour Court as under:- “Issue No.1: decided accordingly. 4 2025:HHC:16610 Issue No.2: No. Issue No.3: No. Relief: Petition is partly allowed per operative portion of the Award.” 7. Learned Labour Court decided issue No.1 by holding that it stood proved on record that from the month of March, 1999 upto August, 2007, the petitioner was given frictional breaks, whereas persons junior to her were allowed to complete 240 days. These findings were returned by learned Labour Court on the basis of evidence on record including the cross-examination of RW-1, Shri Jai Pal Naik, who was working as an Executive Engineer, B&R Division, HPPWD, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. The claim petition was answered in terms already referred by me hereinabove. 8. Learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the Award passed by learned Labour Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law, for the reason that learned Labour Court erred in not appreciating that no fictional breaks were given to the petitioner and further as there was a delay in raising of the industrial dispute, the claimant was not entitled to any relief. No other point was urged. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no perversity in the findings returned by learned Labour Court as the findings are duly substantiated from the evidence on record. He submitted that there was no delay in raising of the industrial dispute as the same was raised by the claimant in the year 2008 itself as it borne out from the Award 5 2025:HHC:16610 passed by learned Labour Court. Accordingly, he submits that as there is no merit in the present petition, the same be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the Award passed by learned Labour Court as well as record of the case. 11. A perusal of the record demonstrates that Jai Pal Naik, Executive Engineer (B&R Division), HPPWD, Joginder Nagar, entered the witness box as RW-1 on behalf of the Department. In his cross- examination, this witness admitted that the workmen mentioned in Para-3 of the affidavit of the petitioner Ext.PW1/A were junior to the petitioner, i.e. the claimant and it was correct that fictional breaks were given to the claimant, whereas no fictional breaks were given to the persons junior to her. This witness further admitted in his cross- examination that claimant was given fictional breaks till 31.08.2007 and that the workers junior to the workman, namely, Shri Dalip Singh was regularized in the year 2012. 12. This Court is of the considered view that as the witness of the Department himself deposed before learned Labour Court that fictional breaks were given to the claimants, whereas no such breaks were given to her and juniors and workmen engaged after the were indeed regularized in the year 2012 itself, the findings returned by learned Labour Court that fictional breaks indeed were given to the workmen call for no interference. In the light of admission on the part of the Department itself that fictional breaks were given to the workmen, the State cannot be allowed to assail the Award on the 6 2025:HHC:16610 ground that these findings are perverse. In fact, these findings cannot be said to be perverse as they are clearly borne out from the record of the case. Similarly, as far as the findings returned by learned Labour Court that the petition was not bad on account of delay and laches also do not call for any interference as it could not demonstrated before the Court that the claimants had raised the demand belatedly. The demand was raised in the year 2008 itself and the Reference was also received from the Appropriate government in the year 2012. 13. Therefore, in the backdrop of what has been observed hereinabove, as this Court does not finds and infirmity in the Award under challenge and further as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 29, 2025 (Rishi) 7 2025:HHC:16610