( 2026:HHC:24433 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2675/2024 a/w connected matters Decided on: 24.06.2026 1. CWP No. 2675/2024 The Registrar, Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, District Solan & Anr. …..Petitioners Versus Om Chand .....Respondent 2. CWP No. 2187/2024 The Registrar, Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, District Solan & Anr. …..Petitioners Versus Dev Raj .....Respondent 3. CWP No. 2403/2024 The Registrar, Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, District Solan & Anr. …..Petitioners Versus Om Chand .....Respondent 4. CWP No. 2661/2024 The Registrar, Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, District Solan & Anr. …..Petitioners Versus Khem Singh .....Respondent 2 ( 2026:HHC:24433 ) 5. CWP No. 3002/2024 The Registrar, Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, District Solan & Anr. …..Petitioners Versus Chet Ram .....Respondent 6. CWP No. 3211/2024 The Registrar, Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, District Solan & Anr. …..Petitioners Versus Daulat Ram .....Respondent 7. CWP No. 3767/2024 The Registrar, Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, District Solan & Anr. …..Petitioners Versus Ram Lal .....Respondent 8. CWP No. 3835/2024 The Registrar, Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, District Solan & Anr. …..Petitioners Versus Ludar Mani .....Respondent 9. CWP No. 5524/2024 The Registrar, Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, District Solan & Anr. …..Petitioners Versus Ved Ram & Anr. .....Respondents ………………………………………………………………………………… Coram 3 ( 2026:HHC:24433 ) Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate in all the petitions. For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate & Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate, in the respective petitions. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. All these writ petitions involve almost common questions of facts & law. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these were tagged together and have accordingly been, heard in that manner. For convenience, reference hereinafter has been made to the facts of the Registrar, Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, District Solan & Anr. Vs Om Chand2. 2. In terms of the impugned award passed by the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., on 25.02.2022, the claim preferred by the respondent was allowed in part. It was held that the time-to-time artificial breaks given by the petitioner in the service of the respondent from August, 2001 to 26.12.2014 were illegal and unjustified. The respondent was held to be in continuous and uninterrupted service with the petitioner from the date of his initial engagement in August, 2001. The period of fictional break was to be 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 CWP No. 2675/2024 4 ( 2026:HHC:24433 ) counted for the purpose of respondent’s seniority and continuity in service as a daily-waged labourer, except for back wages. The seniority of the respondent was to be reckoned from the date of his initial engagement in August, 2001. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-University submitted that the impugned award had not taken into consideration the standing instructions dated 05.12.2001 of petitioners’ University (Ex. RW1/B) regarding the engagement of labour on contractual basis. The respondent was appointed as labourer on the basis of the said standing instructions for a period of 89 days. Respondent’s services automatically stood terminated on completion of 89 days in accordance with the terms & conditions of his engagement, which, in turn, were based upon the standing instructions. The respondent was thereafter engaged again for 89 days and likewise in different spells from the year 2001 to 2010. The respondent left the job of his own volition on 14.06.2010. He never worked for 240 days in any calendar year. The respondent, thus, had been engaged only on contractual basis to do manual work on seasonal basis for specific spells of 89 days on different occasions. With effect from 01.05.2013, the petitioner- University had floated a tender for outsourcing services of unskilled labourers. The contract for outsourcing unskilled labourers was awarded to a contractor-M/s Shimla Clean Ways. The respondent- 5 ( 2026:HHC:24433 ) workman did not agree to work under the contractor and abandoned the work. Learned counsel for the petitioner-University further submitted that the findings recorded and the conclusion drawn by the learned Labour Court in holding the standing instructions of the petitioner-University to be illegal and unfair labour practices are not justified. The respondent had himself furnished an affidavit/undertaking to the effect that his service was liable to be retrenched at any time without giving any notice in case the same was not found satisfactory. That he would not claim any right for regularization or temporary adjustment against any corresponding posts in the University. The claim of the respondent was barred by estoppel. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent defended the impugned award. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. Following claim was sent for adjudication to the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal by the appropriate Government: - “Whether time to time termination of the services of Shri Om Chand S/o Shri Biru Ram, R/o Village Jhiri, P.O. Nagwain, Sub Tehsil Aut, District Mandi, H.P. during year, 2001 to 26.12.2014 (as alleged by workman) by (i) the Registrar Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni District Solan, H.P. (ii) the Associate Director (R&E) Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Regional Horticulture Research Station Bajaura, District Mandi, H.P. without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputs Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back 6 ( 2026:HHC:24433 ) wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employers?” The gist of respondent's claim was that the petitioner- University had given him artificial breaks from the year 2001 till 26.12.2014; During this period, he was engaged for a block period of 89 days on muster roll; After completion of this period, breaks were given in his service, whereafter he was re-engaged in the same capacity for another period of 89 days; This position continued till the termination of his services by the petitioner-University. Engagement of the respondent for a period of 89 days in different spells was not in dispute. The petitioner-University justified the same on the strength of its standing instructions dated 05.12.2001. At this juncture, it will be in-place to notice that, in a similar situation, both on facts and law, pertaining to the case Shri Rajesh Kumar Vs. The Dean, College of Horticulture and Forestry Neri, District Hamirpur & Anr.3 learned Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala while allowing the claim held that the standing instructions of the petitioner-University for engagement of unskilled labourers fall within the ambit of unfair labour practice. Relevant portion from the award reads as under: - “27. Thus, in the case before this court respondents had made scheme which was significantly promulgated for engagement of contractual labourer for 89 days in one spell and in the case before the Hon ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana having similar period of 3 Ref. No. 14/2015 decided by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal Kangra on 24.04.2018 7 ( 2026:HHC:24433 ) engagement of workmen respondents were held to have not complied with the Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act as the workman who was a clerk had been engaged for 89 days and given fresh appointment twice for 89 days As such, referring to aforestated case law and evidence on record, it may not be erroneous to conclude that respondents had recoursed to unfair labour practice initially by adopting standing instruction for engagement of contractual labour Ex. RW1/B which in its prescribed clause (e) duration of contractual labourer was to be not more than 89 in a year for two spells and thereafter by abrupting engagement of labourers on outsource basis through contractor. But in this case, the petitioner had been engaged several times with intervals as shown in mandays chart Ex. P10 from 2004 to 2013 and thus the action of respondents in giving intermittent break as well as finally terminating service without notice and asking the petitioner to work with contractor who was to provide unskilled labourers to respondents on outsource basis was nothing else but termination of service of petitioner without any notice and that the intermittent breaks are held to be deliberately made by the respondents with the object to avoid financial liability upon respondents which could not be accepted as ground to negate or say defeat claim of petitioner. The termination of petitioner would thus be not excluded under Section 2 (oo) (bb) and squarely fell under the definition of retrenchment under the Act necessitating issuance of notice of one month envisaged under Section 25-F of the Act and in alternative wages for one month in lieu of notice period which has admittedly not been done as RWI has shown his inability to tell if while disengaging petitioner any notice was served. Being the Director in university authorized to contest and depose in this case on behalf of respondents was expected to know material facts qua engagement and disengagement of petitioner. Accordingly, applying the case law as referred to above, it is held that petitioner had been wrongly retrenched from service by the respondents in violation of provisions of Act. 33. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues nos. 1 to 6, the reference/claim petition is partly allowed and the respondents are hereby directed to re-engage the petitioner forthwith who is further 8 ( 2026:HHC:24433 ) held to be in continuous uninterrupted service with the respondents from the date of his initial engagement in the year 2004 and that the breaks given by the respondent being fictional in nature shall have no effect on the seniority and continuity of service of the petitioner and his seniority shall be reckoned From his initial date of engagement however, petitioner shall be entitled to seniority and continuity in service from the date of his initial engagement except back wages. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.” Petitioner-University assailed the aforesaid award, which had been passed in several other cases of different workmen as well, in Dean, College of Horticulture and Forestry, Neri & Anr. Vs. Rajeev Kumar & Anr.4 The said petition along with connected matters was dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench, save & except the direction issued for regularizing the service of the workmen therein. Portion relevant to the context is as under: - “10. It is a matter of record that the respondent workman served the petitioners as an unskilled labourer from the year 2006 to 09.09.2014 when his services were terminated without any notice or retrenchment compensation. Record also demonstrates that initially the engagement of the workman was purportedly made for 89 days and fictional breaks were given to ensure that the respondent- workman did not complete 240 days in a calendar year. It is also evident from the record that respondent was initially engaged on 17.07.2006 and he continued to work with the petitioners till 20.07.2012, whereafter he was engaged from 15.07.2013 to 30.09.2014 for different number of working days through outsourcing agency of manpower, as per the Outsource Policy introduced w.e.f. April 2013. However, there is no documentary evidence suggesting 4 CWP No. 2612/2018 decided a/w connected matters on 13.11.2018 9 ( 2026:HHC:24433 ) that at any stage the services of the respondent-workman were placed at the disposal of M/S Shimla Cleanways by the petitioners. 11. It is apparent from the record that there is violation of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as workmen, namely, Asha Devi and Tara Chand, who were engaged on 13.07.2009 were permitted to complete more than 240 days in the years 2010, 2011, 2012 and also 2013, whereas on account of intermittent breaks given to the respondent-workman, he was not permitted to complete 240 days in a calendar year. Therefore, the termination of services of the respondent-workman in the year 2014 without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F amounts to violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been rightly held by learned Labour Court that but for the fictional breaks granted to the respondent-workman, he would have completed “continuous service” in a year as envisaged under Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This also proves that the petitioners gave deliberate breaks to the respondent-workman so that he could not complete 240 days in a calendar year. The factum of disengaging the respondent-workman periodically and retaining juniors also stands borne out from the record. In this view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity with the findings returned by the learned Labour Court directing reengagement of the services of the respondent-workman forthwith alongwith seniority and continuity in service.” Dean, College of Horticulture and Forestry, Neri & Anr. Vs. Rajeev Kumar & Anr5 was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 13.11.2019. The facts of the instant cases are almost similar to the facts of Rajesh Kumar3 & Rajeev Kumar4 . 5 SLP (C) Diary No(s). 37886/2019 decided on 13.11.2019 10 ( 2026:HHC:24433 ) Apart from the above, the respondent has also claimed violation of the principle of 'last come, first go'. It has been asserted that new persons had been engaged in place of the respondent and that junior workmen, named in the claim petition, had been retained in breach of the principles laid down in Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. Plea was held substantiated on record. Further, the learned Labour Court drew the correct inference from the evidence on record that petitioner-University's plea of the respondent having abandoned the work could not be accepted for want of any notice issued by them to the respondent in this regard. It is also a matter of record that after 89 days, the petitioners-University used to engage the services of the respondent. Had there been any voluntary abandonment of service by the respondent, the petitioners would not have engaged him thereafter. Reliance placed upon the affidavit allegedly furnished by the respondent is also misconceived. Admittedly, no such affidavit was placed on record or produced in evidence before the learned Labour Court. The respondent was not given an opportunity to explain the same. Even otherwise, there is no estoppel against law. The question of delay and laches raised by the petitioner has also been dealt with in Rajesh Kumar³ & Rajeev Kumar4 and has been decided against the petitioner. As noticed earlier, the awards passed therein, on a reference almost similar to the one involved in the 11 ( 2026:HHC:24433 ) present case involving almost similar questions of facts & law, have been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court as well as by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Impugned awards are based upon correct appreciation of evidence led by the parties. For the foregoing reasons, no interference is called for in the impugned awards passed by the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. hence, these writ petitions are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 24th June, 2026 (rohit)