2025:HHC:14160 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3964 of 2023 Decided on: 15.05.2025 Manoj Kumar … Petitioner Versus The Resident Engineer, H.P.S.E.B. Bassi Power House, Jogindernagar … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : M/s Rahul Mahajan and Smridhi Rathour, Advocates. For the respondent : Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “a) A writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be passed for quashing and setting aside the Award dated 26.07.2022 passed in reference No.193/2016, titled as Manoj Kumar Versus The Resident Engineer, H.P.S.E.B. Bassi by the Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (Annexure P- 5). b) Answer the reference titled as Manoj Kumar Vs. The Resident Engineer, H.P. S.E.B. Bassi No.193/2016 in favour of petitioner and record of the case may kindly be summoned.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that on an industrial dispute raised by the petitioner/ workman, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:14160 the following Reference was made by the appropriate Government to learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.:- “Whether alleged termination of services of Shri Manoj Kumar S/O Shn Ishwar Singh, R/O Village Dhakrera, P.O. Jalpehar, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P wef 26.12. 1996 by the Resident Engineer, H.P.SE.B. Bassi Power House, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., who had worked as beldar on daily wages and has raised his industrial dispute after more than 14 years vide demand notice dated 01.10.2011, without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not. keeping in view of delay of more than 14 years in raising the industrial dispute, what amount of back wages. seniority. past service benefits and compensation the above ex-worker is entitled to from the above employer/management?" 3. Learned Labour Court, in terms of Award, dated 26.07.2022, passed in Reference No.193/2016, titled Shri Manoj Kumar Versus The Resident Engineer, H.P.S.E.B. Bassi Power House, Jogindernagar, answered the Reference as under:- “16. In view of my above discussion, the present claim petition merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 17. 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.” 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has assailed the Award. 3 2025:HHC:14160 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the Award as well as other documents on record. 6. The contention of the petitioner before learned Labour Court was that the termination of the service of the petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. 26.12.1996 was illegal. As per the Award, the petitioner was engaged from 07.10.1996 to 25.12.1996 for 78 days. According to the petitioner, the termination of his service was bad and in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). 7. Learned Labour Court held that in the light of the fact that the petitioner has served only for three months and in those three months also, for seventy eights days only, there was no violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. With regard to the violation of Section 25-G of the Act. Learned Labour Court also held that the workmen referred to by the petitioner in Para-12 of the claim to be his juniors, could not be demonstrated to be engaged after the disengagement of the petitioner or otherwise. It held that whereas the pleaded case of the petitioner was that he was engaged on 07.10.1996, the other workmen, namely, Suresh Kumar and Tek Chand were engaged w.e.f. 30.09.1996 and were thus, senior to him and as far as Rajinder Singh is concerned, he was also engaged on 30.10.1996, i.e. before the petitioner as per the seniority list Ext.P-1. On these basis, learned Labour Court held that there was no violation of the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act. 8. As far as Section 25-H of the Act is concerned, learned 4 2025:HHC:14160 Labour Court in Para-13 of the judgment held that the persons named therein to prove the violation of Section 25-H did not find mention in the record and in fact, the record demonstrated that there was no re-engagement of any workman in the year 1998 and the list began only from the year 2004 and it related to certain persons whose names were not referred to by the petitioner in the pleadings. In the backdrop of this fact, learned Labour Court observed that the Court cannot make out a case for the workman in vacuum in the absence of pleadings and opportunity to the other party to controvert such like facts. Learned Labour Court also held that the claimant had raised the industrial dispute after thirteen years and therefore also, the claim suffered from delay and laches. 9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that the findings returned by learned Labour Court were contrary to the record. 10. Therefore, as it stood established that there was no violation of the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G 25-H of the Act, this Court does not finds any infirmity in the Award. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the Award is not sustainable, however, as already observed hereinabove, the findings returned therein could not be demonstrated to be perverse or contrary to the record. It is a matter of record that the petitioner was not able to prove that there was any violation of Section 25-G or Section 25-H of the Act. The persons named by him in the claim petition were either senior to him or did not find mention in the 5 2025:HHC:14160 record at all. 11. In the backdrop of the above observations coupled with the fact that there was an unexplained delay or thirteen years in raising the industrial dispute, learned Labour Court correctly answered the Reference by rejecting the claim of the workman. 12. Accordingly, 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 15, 2025 (Rishi)