2025:HHC:23859 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1890 of 2023 Decided on: 23.07.2025 Prem Singh … Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Ravinder Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the award passed by the learned Labour Court, in terms whereof, the petition filed by the present petitioner under Section 2(A)(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act was decided by learned Labour Court as under:- “29. In the light of what has been discussed hereinabove while recording the findings on issues supra, the respondents are hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) to the petitioner in lieu of the reinstatement, back wages, seniority and past service benefits. Amount of compensation so awarded shall be paid by the respondents to the petitioner within four months from 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:23859 the date of receipt of Award failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of award till realization/deposit of the amount. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms. A copy of this Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette and the file after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.” 2. In the light of the fact that the respondents have not challenged the award passed by learned Labour Court, the findings returned by learned Labour Court qua the violation of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are not being disturbed. 3. Suffice it to say that it is a matter of record that the petitioner served the respondent-Board only for 46 days and the complaint was filed by him after a period of 16 years, without any cogent explanation as to why the same was done after such a long delay, the petitioner should have been satisfied with the compensation that has been awarded to him by the learned Labour Court. Thus, as the compensation has already been granted in favour of the petitioner and as the respondent-Board has not challenged the award, this Court is not interfering with the findings returned by learned Labour Court qua the violation of the provisions 3 2025:HHC:23859 of the Industrial Disputes Act but this Court also does not find this to be a case, wherein the order of reinstatement should have been passed, as has been prayed for on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, this petition is dismissed and the award is upheld. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 23, 2025 (narender)