IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.13505 of 2025 Decided on: 27.02.2026 _________________________________________________________________ Engineer-in-Chief, Lok Nirman Bhawan & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus Kishori Dutt & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4 and 6 to 8. Mr. Ankit Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge State has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court against the order dated 31.10.2023, passed by the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby an application moved by the respondents-workmen under Section 33 (C) (2) of the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes - 2 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act in short) was partly allowed and the petitioners (employer) were directed to pay sum of Rs. 67,839/-, Rs.1,31,134/-, Rs.1,31,134/-, Rs.1,31,164/-, Rs.1,24,491/-, Rs.1,24,491/-, Rs.1,31,134/- and Rs.1,31,134/- respectively to respondents No. 1 to 8 as arrears of wages/salary with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the realization of the amount. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. It is not in dispute that the respondents had filed claim petition before the learned Labour Court asserting that they had been engaged by the petitioners on daily wage basis on muster roll during the years 1998-2000. They worked continuously till 08.02.2005 and 07.07.2005; Their services were illegally terminated by the petitioners (employer) w.e.f. 09.02.2004 and 08.07.2005. Learned Labour Court passed the award on 30.04.2016 in respondents’ favour. Their termination was set aside. On the basis of the award, respondents were reinstated by the petitioners-(employer) on daily wage basis. Their services were regularized w.e.f. - 3 - 27.11.2008 as Beldar. Respondents filed an application under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Act with the grievance that the petitioners (employer) had not paid them arrears amounting to Rs. 67,839/-, Rs.1,31,134/-, Rs.1,31,134/-, Rs.1,31,164/-, Rs.1,24,491/- Rs.1,24,491/-, Rs.1,31,134/- and Rs.1,31,134/-respectively w.e.f. 27.11.2008 till the date of their prospective regularization. Petitioners (employer) submitted before the learned Labour Court that the respondents had been given benefits on notional basis w.e.f. 28.11.2008 and on actual basis w.e.f. 15.10.2013 under office order dated 05.07.2017 and thus, they were not entitled to arrears w.e.f. 27.11.2008 till the date of their actual joining in the Department as the respondents had not worked during this period. The petitioners (employer), however, categorically pleaded that they were liable to pay the arrears amounting to Rs. 67,839/- to respondent No.1, Rs.1,31,134/- to respondent No.2, Rs.1,31,134/- to respondent No.3, Rs.1,31,164/- to respondent No.4, Rs.1,24,491/- to respondent No.5, Rs.1,24,491/- to respondent No.6, - 4 - Rs.1,31,134/- to respondent No.7 and Rs.1,31,134/-r to respondent No.8, w.e.f. October 2010 to 14.10.2013. 4. Learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal after considering the respective stand of the parties held that the petitioners (employer) had taken the plea of respondents’- workmen having not worked from 27.11.2008, were not entitled to arrears from 27.11.2008 and further that the petitioners (employer) would be liable to pay arrears to the respondents-workmen only from October 2010 to 14.10.2013. Petitioners (employer) had themselves admitted that for this specific period i.e. 10/2010 to 14.10.2013, they are liable to pay the workmen. The payable amount was also quantified by the petitioners (employer) themselves, as noticed above. Once the petitioners (employer) admit the liability to pay arrears to the respondents-workmen for a specific period i.e. 10/2010 to 14.10.2013 and also quantifies the said liability and further comes with the plea that it has already entered into correspondence with the higher authorities for sanctioning and releasing the said arrears, learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal committed no error in allowing the application moved by the respondents- - 5 - workmen under Section 33 (C)(2) of the Act, directing the petitioners (employer) to pay that very sum to different workmen as was quantified by the petitioners (employer) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of application till realization of the amount. The liability to pay to the respondents-workmen for the period 10/2010 to 14.10.2013, as quantified by the petitioners (employer) stood admitted. Hence the impugned order calls for no interference. 5. Consequently, present writ petition is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge February 27, 2026 R.Atal