2026:HHC:22792 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9554 of 2026 Decided on: 17th June, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M/s Batot Hydro Power Project Ltd. …..Petitioner Versus Saifu .....Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Surender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Nemo. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner feels aggrieved against the award passed by the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala on 20.03.2026, allowing the claim petition moved by the respondent. The award held the respondent entitled for reinstatement in the petitioner- Company on the similar post as on the date of his termination alongwith 50% of the back wages from the date of termination with seniority and continuity of service. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:22792 2. Facts:- 2(i). Following reference was sent by the Appropriate Government for adjudication to the learned Labour Court:- “Whether the termination of services of Shri Saifu S/O Shri Yakub, R/O Village Sadai, P.O. Khundel, Development Block Mehla, Tehsil & District Chamba, H.P. by the Assistant General Manager, M/S Batot Hydro Power Limited, Village Sadai, P.O. Khundel, Tehsil & District Chamba, H.P. w.e.f. 30-07-2018, without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, compensation and past service benefits the above worker is entitled to from the above employer?” 2(ii). Respondent filed his claim petition averring therein that he was engaged as Helper on muster roll/daily wage basis by the petitioner on 03.07.2013. He worked with the petitioner-Company continuously till September, 2018 at monthly salary of Rs.6300/-. His services were orally terminated by the petitioner. After termination of his services, the respondent approached the petitioner- Company multiple times and made several requests for his reinstatement, but without any success. Respondent also alleged that one month’s notice indicating reasons for his termination was also not issued by the petitioner. Retrenchment compensation was also not paid to him. Petitioner did not comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short ‘the 3 2026:HHC:22792 Act’). Respondent also asserted that after termination of his services, new workmen were engaged/re-engaged by the petitioner from time to time. Juniors to the respondent had been retained in service continuously without any breaks. Their services had also been regularized. Respondent alleged that termination of his services while retaining his juniors was in violation of the principle of ‘last come first go’ envisaged under Section 25-G of the Act. Respondent also pleaded that he remained unemployed from the date of his illegal termination and was not gainfully employed anywhere. One other fact asserted by the respondent was that the petitioner-Company had executed an agreement with his father undertaking to provide job/employment to the family of the land owner (affected on account of the project related activities) for a period of 40 years, as 22-00-00 bighas of land belonging to respondent’s father had been utilized by the petitioner for construction of the project. Despite this agreement, petitioner terminated respondent’s services with a malafide intention just to harass him. 2(iii). Petitioner in its defense pleaded that the respondent was appointed as Helper in its organization 4 2026:HHC:22792 w.e.f. 01.07.2013; Respondent had himself resigned from service of the petitioner on 30.07.2018, citing domestic problems; Respondent had moved an application on 30.07.2018, resigning from service. In the said application, he also requested the project authorities to settle his dues including the Employees Provident Fund. The application was accepted. Petitioner denied orally terminating respondent’s services. Respondent’s other allegations were also refuted by the petitioner. 2(iv). Parties adduced evidence in support of their respective stands. On considering the same, learned Labour Court allowed the claim petition, holding the respondent entitled for reinstatement alongwith 50% of back wages from the date of his termination with seniority and continuity. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the case file. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent had himself resigned from the post on 31.07.2018. Attention in this regard was invited to page 24 of the paper book, which is supposed to be the application of the respondent seeking retirement and settlement of his retiral dues. Learned Labour Court has made reference to 5 2026:HHC:22792 the evidence adduced by the parties in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the impugned award. The discussion made and inference drawn therein has not been disputed before this Court. Learned Labour Court has observed that during cross-examination, respondent had denied having submitted his resignation on 30.07.2018 due to domestic reason and also requesting therein for full & final settlement of his retiral dues; Respondent was confronted with the resignation letter, relieving letter as also the acceptance of resignation by the petitioner. The respondent admitted his signatures on the resignation letter, but stated that he was made to sign at hundred places by the petitioner. That he was an illiterate person; The respondent denied having received full and final settlement of dues, though admitted that the amount might have been deposited by the petitioner in his bank account; He denied having moved any application for withdrawing his EPF. Respondent though admitted that he has received the Gratuity amount of Rs.18174/-, but denied filling any form for claiming retiral benefits. He denied the suggestion given to him that he had tendered resignation from the petitioner- Company for applying to work as Contractor therein. 6 2026:HHC:22792 The sum total of the evidence adduced by the respondent was that he consistently denied having resigned from work due to domestic reasons. He though admitted his signatures on the resignation letter, but stated that he was an illiterate person and was made to sign by the petitioner at several places. He was not aware about the contents of the letters/documents he was made to sign. In these circumstances, learned Labour Court was justified in disregarding the resignation letter, more so when no suggestion was given to the respondent by the petitioner that he had signed the resignation letter after comprehending its contents. Resignation being a conscious decision of the respondent, was not established on record. Learned Labour Court has also observed that in the resignation letter, name of the respondent has been differently mentioned than the signature on the document. That once the respondent has pleaded about him being illiterate, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have produced oral or documentary evidence to establish that resignation letter and other documents were voluntarily signed by the respondent after understanding the nature and contents of the documents. Since it was not in dispute that respondent was an illiterate person, the burden was 7 2026:HHC:22792 upon the petitioner to establish that the resignation letter was furnished by the respondent out of his own free will. Alleged offering of resignation by the respondent on 31.07.2018 and its acceptance the same day by the petitioner without even complying with the mandatory statutory provisions, requiring one month’s notice, payment of compensation etc., do create doubt about genuineness of respondent’s resignation or the fact that such resignation was voluntarily tendered by him. Further, the petitioner did not lead any evidence in support of its suggestion given to the respondent about him having resigned in order to serve as Contractor with it. Since the continuous service of the respondent with the petitioner-Company w.e.f. 2013 to 2018 was not in dispute and the resignation allegedly tendered by him to the petitioner was not proved to be the fallout of his conscious mind, learned Labour Court did not commit any error in allowing the claim petition. 5. For the foregoing reasons, no interference is called for with the impugned award. This writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 17, 2026 Judge Mukesh