2025:HHC:37596 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No.2129 of 2019 Decided on: 30.10.2025 _________________________________________________________ Satish Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. No. For the petitioner: Mr. Amrick Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Ranjan Sharma, Judge [Oral] The petitioner, Satish Kumar, had initially filed CWP No. 2304 of 2012 before this Court. Upon establishment of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, the matter was transferred and registered as T.A. No. 2514 of 2015, and upon the abolition of Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No.2129 of 2019, wherein, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):— (a). That Writ of Certiorari may be issued for quashing and setting aside the order dated 09.06.2011 i.e., the impugned Annexure P-10, in the interest of Justice and fair play. (b) That Writ of Mandamus may be issued directing the Respondent to re-engage the services of the present petitioner from the date 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:37596 - 2 - of oral termination i.e. 27.01.1999 with all consequential benefits.” 2. At the very outset, Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner shall be satisfied in case in terms of the order dated 28.05.2008 passed in Civil Review No.06 of 2007 [Annexure P-6], the State Authorities are directed to consider the representation [Annexure P-7], submitted to Executive Engineer, IPH Division No.1, raising various contentions, including the claim for re-employment in the ground that some of the retrenched persons were re-employed, without affording an opportunity for re-employment to the petitioner, being contrary to the statutory requirement [Section 25-H] and such representation is pending, as no order adjudicating the claim has been passed and received as yet. FACTUAL MATRIX: 3. Grievance of the petitioner, Satish Kumar, is that he was engaged as daily wage Beldar in the Respondent-Department in July 1996 and his services were orally terminated on 21.07.1999. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an Original Application No.455/1999 [Annexure P-1] which was not pressed by the petitioner 2025:HHC:37596 - 3 - and the same was disposed of, by directing the respondents to re-engage the petitioner as to when sanction from the Government is received. 3(i). Petitioner awaited the outcome, but since nothing was done, he filed an Original Application No.1047/2001 which was returned by the State Administrative Tribunal by permitting the petitioner to assail his rights under the Industrial Disputes Act, vide order dated 29.04.2002, [Annexure P-2]. 3(ii). Resultantly, in terms of the orders dated 29.04.2002 [Annexure P-2], served a Demand Notice under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Executive Engineer, IPH Division No.1, Una, on 28.07.2002 [Annexure P-3]. Pursuant to the Demand Notice, the appropriate Government framed a reference No.35 of 2003 which was decided by the Labour Court- cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, on 25.02.2006 [Annexure P-4] wherein the reference was answered in the negative and the claim of the petitioner was dismissed. 3(iii). Feeling aggrieved against the Award dated 25.02.2006 [Annexure P-4] the petitioner filed a CWP No.860 of 2006, which was dismissed by the Division 2025:HHC:37596 - 4 - Bench of this Court on 27.10.2006 [Annexure P-5] wherein the petitioner has assailed his oral termination dated 27.01.1999 to be in violation of the principles of “last come first go” and violation of Industrial Disputes Act. 3(iv). Pursuant to the dismissal of the petition on 27.10.2006 [Annexure P-5], the petitioner filed a Civil Review Petition No.06 of 2007 [Annexure P-6], which was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.05.2008 reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the employer directly for redressal of his grievances. Pursuant to the liberty granted to the petitioner on 28.05.2008 in Civil Review No.06/2007, the petitioner submitted a representation [Annexure P-7] [At Page 47 of Paper-Book] to the Executive Engineer, IPH Division No.1, Una. 3(v). Thereafter, on 22.11.2008 [Annexure P-8] the Superintending Engineer, IPH Circle Una directed the Executive Engineer, IPH Division No.1, Una to take further action of the representation. Since nothing was done, the petitioner served a Demand Notice [Annexure P- 9], on which conciliation proceedings were undertaken and the Conciliation Officer Una furnished the 2025:HHC:37596 - 5 - Conciliation Report dated 22.01.2011 to the appropriate Government. Based on the Conciliation Report, the appropriate Government i.e. Labour Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, passed an order in June 2011 [Annexure P-10], whereby, the claim of the petitioner for framing of a reference was rejected on the ground of being vexatious and frivolous, in view of the fact that the grievance already stood adjudicated by Labour Court in terms of the Reference No.35 of 2003, dated 25.02.2006 [Annexure P-4], disallowing the claim, alleging oral termination and retention of juniors. It is in this background, that the petitioner has assailed the communication dated 09.06.2011 [Annexure P-10] in instant proceedings. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES: 4. Pursuant to issuance of notice the State Authorities have filed the Reply-Affidavit dated 19.12.2012 of Labour Commissioner-cum-Director of Employment, Himachal Pradesh. 4(i). Reply-Affidavit indicates that the petitioner was engaged as daily wage Beldar on 08.10.1996 and continued till 21.07.1999 when his services were 2025:HHC:37596 - 6 - allegedly dis-engaged by the State Authorities. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner assailed the termination being in violation of Section 25-F and the retention of juniors [Section 25-G] which Original Application was not pressed. Another Original Application was filed which was withdrawn. Thereafter, the Demand Notice was issued invoking reference and adjudication by the Labour Court whereby the reference No.35 of 2003 was answered in the negative in terms of the Award dated 25.02.2006. It is further averred that once the reference stand answered in terms of the Award dated 25.02.2006, against which the CWP No.860 of 2006 was dismissed on 27.10.2006 and the Civil Review No.06 of 2007 was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 28.05.2008 [Annexure P-6] therefore, the petitioner could not have re-invoked the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act by way of Demand Notice [Annexure P-9]. In these circumstances, the prayer was made for dismissal of the writ petition. SEPARATE REPLY BY RESPONDENT NO.3: 5. Respondent No.3-Executive Engineer filed a separate reply on the affidavit dated 12.07.2012 of 2025:HHC:37596 - 7 - Superintending Engineer, IPH Circle Una. 5(i). The incumbency of the petitioner that he was engaged as Beldar in October, 1996 and had abandoned the work during January 1999 was reiterated in the reply. Factum of oral termination was denied in the reply. It is further averred that as per Mandays Chart, the petitioner had not rendered 240 days of continuous service preceding the alleged abandonment or termination. It is further averred that the petitioner filed two Original Applications i.e. Original Application No.455 of 1999 which was not pressed and thereafter another Original Application No.1047 of 2001, which was withdrawn by the petitioner. Thereafter, it is further averred that the petitioner invoked the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act leading to framing of a Reference No.35 of 2003 and the reference was answered in the negative on 25.02.2006 [Annexure P-4]. Against the Award the petitioner a CWP No.860 of 2006 which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 27.10.2006 [Annexure P-5] against which, the petitioner filed a Civil Review No.06 of 2007 but the same was withdrawn on 28.05.2008 [Annexure P-6]. It was 2025:HHC:37596 - 8 - averred in Para 6 of Reply-Affidavit that once the High Court has adjudicated the claim and contention of the petitioner, leading to withdrawal of litigation and disallowing the relief then, the respondents have no jurisdiction to sit over the judgment passed by this Court. In these circumstances, the State Authorities have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. NO REBUTTAL-REJOINDER: 6. In relation to the two separate replies, the petitioner has chosen not to file a rebuttal-rejoinder. However, Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the discussion in earlier round of litigation cannot be made the ground not to comply with the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Review No.06 of 2007, dated 28.05.2008 [Annexure P-6] which still holds the field and have attained finality. In these circumstances, non-adjudication of representation [Annexure A-7] primarily for re-employment [Section 25- H] has prejudiced the petitioner. 7. Heard Mr. Amrick Singh, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. 2025:HHC:37596 - 9 - 8. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances and the limited prayer made by Learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court proceeds ahead in the instant case. 8(i). Drawing support from the orders dated 28.05.2008 passed in Civil Review No.06 of 2007 whereby liberty was reserved to the petitioner to approach the employer directly for redressal of grievances, the petitioner states that he had approached the Executive Engineer, IPH Division No.1, Una, by way of representation [Annexure P-7] alleging in Para 5 that incumbents who were engaged in October, 1996 [subsequent to the petitioner], have been re-engaged and once the retrenched persons-juniors and fresh persons were re-employed then, the petitioner-senior could not be denied the opportunity and right to be considered for re-employment which was illegal. 8(ii). In addition to this, the petitioner had made similar averment in the Demand Notice [Annexure P-9] and Para 14 thereof stating therein that ignoring the claim of the petitioner for re-employment the other incumbents have been re-employed in violation of 2025:HHC:37596 - 10 - Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. 9. Per contra, Learned State Counsel submits that the material on record does not indicate as to whether in terms of the judgment dated 28.05.2008 passed by the Division Bench in Civil Review No.06 of 2007, [Annexure P-6] the representation submitted [vide Annexure P-7] to Executive Engineer, IPH Division No.1, Una, has been considered and appropriate order(s) have been passed or not. He further submits that, in case, the representation has not been decided as yet by passing the appropriate orders, the same shall be duly considered and appropriate orders in compliance to the orders dated 28.05.2008 passed in Civil Review as referred to above, shall be passed by competent authority expeditiously. DIRECTIONS: 10. Taking into account the factual matrix and the statement made by Learned Counsel for the petitioner and without going into merits, and leaving all questions upon, this Court disposes of instant petition, in the following terms: (i). State Authorities-Executive Engineer, IPH 2025:HHC:37596 - 11 - Division No.1, Una/competent authority are directed to examine the representation Annexure P-7 [at Pare 47 of Paper-Book], [if not already decided] in terms of the order/judgment dated 28.05.2008 passed in Civil Review No.06 of 2007 by the Division Bench of this Court, within a period of two months from today; (ii). Needless to say that this Court has not adverted to the merits and claims and contentions and all questions are left open to examined, considered and decided, in accordance with law, by Executive Engineer/ Competent Authority, within the above period; (iii). In terms of the Statement made by Learned Counsel for the petitioner, the validity of the Impugned Order dated 09.06.2011 [Annexure P-10], is not interfered with, being not pressed, in these proceedings; (iv). parties to bear respective costs. In the aforesaid terms, the instant petition and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge October 29, 2025 [Shivender]