2025:HHC:8581 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 524 of 2019 with CWPs No. CWP No. 8348 of 2021, CWPs No. 195, 196, 213, 214 and 215 of 2022 Decided on: 01.04.2025 CWP No. 524 of 2019 M/s Mohan Meakin Limited … Petitioner Versus Labour Officer-cum-Controlling Authority and others… Respondents CWP No. 8348 of 2021 M/s Mohan Meakin Limited … Petitioner Versus Labour Officer-cum-Controlling Authority and others… Respondents CWP No. 195 of 2022 M/s Mohan Meakin Limited … Petitioner Versus Labour Officer-cum-Controlling Authority and others… Respondents CWP No. 196 of 2022 M/s Mohan Meakin Limited … Petitioner Versus Labour Officer-cum-Controlling Authority and others… Respondents CWP No. 213 of 2022 M/s Mohan Meakin Limited … Petitioner Versus Labour Officer-cum-Controlling Authority and others… Respondents CWP No. 214 of 2022 2 2025:HHC:8581 M/s Mohan Meakin Limited … Petitioner Versus Labour Officer-cum-Controlling Authority and others… Respondents CWP No. 215 of 2022 M/s Mohan Meakin Limited … Petitioner Versus Labour Officer-cum-Controlling Authority and others… Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner(s) : Mr. K.D. Sood, Senior Advocate with M/s Sanjeev Sood and Het Ram Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in all the petitions. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Addl. AG. For respondents-State, in all the petitions. : Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate, Mr. Jia Lal Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate, Mr. Kashmir Singh Thakur, Senior Advocate with Ms. Monika Thakur, Advocate, Mr. Vipin Pandit, Advocate, Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Devender Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the respective private respondents, in the respective petitions. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) In all these cases, the petitioner(s)-Mohan Meakin 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 3 Limited has assailed the orders passed by the Authority under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, and has also demanded the refund of Gratuity, which the petitioner had to deposit with interest in light of the orders passed by the Authorities. 2. When these cases were taken up for consideration by this Court on previous dates, an observation was made by the Court that in the backdrop of the fact that the private respondents were teachers/their Legal representatives, who had served the Mohan Meakin High/Middle School and majority of the teachers were of elderly age, it would be in the interest of justice, in case, as an exception, quietus is put to this litigation. The Court further observed that quietus can be put by releasing in favour of the respondents-Teachers/their legal representatives, whatever stood deposited by the petitioner with the Registry of this Court and by further making an observation that as far as those teachers who already had got the amount released, no recovery shall be effected from them. Learned Counsel representing the parties took time to have instructions in this regard. 3. Today, learned Counsel for the parties are present in the Court. Ms. Sushma Dutta, private respondent in CWP No. 196 of 2022 is also present in person in the Court. She made a submission that she has no opposition to the suggestion of the Court but she be paid interest also. To this, the Court made an observation that 4 because it was a petition that has been filed by Mohan Meakin and she had not agitated the matter of grant of interest by filing a petition, therefore, no such order can be passed in her favour in this petition. She submitted that to put a quietus to the issue, let the matter be put to an end as was suggested by the Court. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) submitted that this be also observed by the Court that hereinafter none of the respondents shall put forth any further claim and all pending claims shall also be withdrawn. 4. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel representing the private respondents, these writ petitions are disposed of with the direction that: (a) the amount which already stands released in favour of the respondents/their legal representatives, shall not be demanded back from them by the petitioner; (b) the amount that is lying deposited with the Registry of this Court in the name of the respondents/their legal representatives be released in their favour alongwith interest, if any; (c) litigations, if any, preferred by the respondents, either against Mohan Meakin Limited or the School in issue, are hereby ordered to be closed; (c) no further litigation on this issue shall be initiated by the respondents/their legal representatives, either against the petitioner or the school concerned. 5 5. It goes without saying that the petitioner shall also not file any fresh litigation against the private respondents/their legal representatives with regard to the issue. 6. As prayed for, it is further observed that the amount which is lying deposited with the Registry of this Court, be released in favour of the respective respondents alongwith up-to-date interest thereon, if any. The writ petitions stand disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 01, 2025 (narender)