2025:HHC:24527 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1587 of 2025 Decided on: 28.07.2025 Smt. Guddi Devi … Petitioner Versus The Executive Engineer, HPPWD … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(a Writ of certiorari may kindly be issued for modification of Award dated 21.07.2023, passed in Reference No. 18 of 2018, in Reference titled as Guddi Devi vs. Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division, Dharampur, by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Kangra, at Dharamshala and petitioner be granted reinstatement with continuity, seniority, alongwith all other consequential benefits and back wages instead of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. (b) Reference be answered in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the award dated 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:24527 21.07.2023, passed in her favour by learned Labour Court, in terms whereof, the following Reference made by the appropriate Government has been decided as under:- “Reference: “Whether termination of the services of Smt. Guddi Devi W/O Shri Krishan Chand, R/O Village Putlipald, P.O. Mandap, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. Dharampur, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. w.e.f. 01.06.2000 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 amount of compensation the above aggrieved worker is entitled to from the above employer?" Answer:- “16.In view of my discussion on the above issues, it is held that though there had been violation of Section 25-G of the Act but the petitioner had raised demand after a gap of more than 10 years and her claim for reinstatement has been thus vitiated by delay and latches, hence reinstatement and other consequential benefits cannot be granted in her favour but she is held entitled for compensation to the tune of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), which would be paid within four months by the respondent and from the date of receipt of Award failing which the respondent shall be liable 3 2025:HHC:24527 to pay the interest @ 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of award till the date of its realization. Parties are left to bear their costs.” 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner while taking the Court through the award as also the pleadings has submitted that learned Labour Court has prima facie erred in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has not completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months as from the date of her termination because Annexure R-1 appended with the reply filed to the petition demonstrates that in the 12 preceding months as from the date when her services were terminated i.e. in the year 1998, from the month of July to December, she has completed 113 days and as from the January 1999 up to September, 1999, she worked for 237 days. Meaning thereby that if we take nine months of the year 1999 as well as preceding three months of the year 1998, then obviously, the petitioner has completed more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months as from the date of her termination. Therefore, the findings returned by learned Labour Court with regard of the provisions of Section 25-F are perverse findings. Learned Deputy Advocate General could not controvert that it was clearly borne out from the record that in the preceding 12 months as from the date when services of the petitioner were terminated, she had actually completed more than 240 days. Therefore, obviously the findings 4 2025:HHC:24527 returned to the contrary by learned Labour Court are perverse as this aspect of the matter has been wrongly decided by the learned Labour Court. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the learned Labour Court to pass a fresh award, taking into consideration all aspects of the matter. Parties through Counsel are directed to appear before learned Labour Court on 18.08.2025. Let needful be done to answer the reference as expeditiously as possible and preferably not later than 31.12.2025. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 28, 2025 (narender)