1 2026:HHC:29786 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9043/2025 Decided on: 21.07.2026. Yog Raj …..Petitioner Versus The Senior Executive Engineer, HPSEB Ltd. Joginder Nagar, Distt. Mandi .....Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner: Mr. Jai Dev Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the Act) was decided against the petitioner on 31.07.2023 by the learned Labour Court- cum- Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. Feeling aggrieved, he has invoked jurisdiction of this Court. 2. Following reference was sent by the appropriate Government for adjudication to learned Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.:- “Whether alleged termination of services of Shri Yog Raj S/o Shri Ghesu Ram, R/o Village Hyun, P.O. Urla, Tehsil Padhar, District Mandi, H.P. w.e.f. 25.09.1998 by the Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:29786 H.P.S.E.B. Limited, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., who had worked as beldar on daily wages only for 59 days during years, 1996-98 and has raised his industrial dispute after more than 14 years vide demand notice dated 27.12.2012, without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, keeping in view of working period of 59 days during years 1996-98 and delay of more than 14 years ijn 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?” The above was followed by corrigendum dated 14.05.2018 as under:- “Whereas, a reference has been made to this Ld. Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. vide notification of even no. dated 17.03.2016 for legal adjudication. However, inadvertently the correct facts could not be mentioned about the date of termination in the said notification. Therefor,e the same may be read as “30.11.2019” instead of “25.09.1998.” 2(i). Petitioner’s case in nutshell was that he was engaged as daily waged beldar on muster roll basis by the respondent in the year 1995 and he worked as such till November, 1999 with interruptions and breaks given by the respondent; His services were terminated w.e.f. 30.11.1999 after serving him a notice dated 05.11.1999 on the ground of non-availability of budget with the department. Petitioner alleged that certain other co- workers named in the claim were also retrenched on the 3 2026:HHC:29786 same ground. Some of these workmen were engaged by the department afresh but similar opportunity was denied to the petitioner and several others. In this background, the petitioner approached the appropriate government by raising demand but Labour Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh on 17.01.2014 declined to refer the dispute for adjudication to the learned Labour Court. Petitioner moved this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.117/2016. Pursuant to the decision rendered therein on 22.02.2016, the reference as extracted earlier was made by the appropriate government. 2(ii). The respondents contested the claim with the plea that petitioner’s service had never been terminated; Petitioner had left the work on his own; He had abandoned the work. Respondents also raised plea that petitioner had raised the dispute after long delay of about 14 years from the date of his alleged termination. It was also pleaded that petitioner had worked only for about 59 days during the years 1996-98, which was also so mentioned in the reference for adjudication before the learned Labour Court. Therefore, petitioner was not entitled to relief claimed by him. After considering the respective stands of the parties as also, the evidence produced by them on record, 4 2026:HHC:29786 learned Labour Court held that services of the petitioner had been terminated under the office letter Ex. PA (Annexure P-1 dated 05.11.1999). In terms of said office letter, the services of the petitioner had been terminated on the ground of budgetary provisions. Learned Labour Court was of the view that petitioner should have been re- engaged on availability of budget as also the work; That the respondent had not denied petitioner’s allegation of retention of several persons at the time when his services were terminated; Petitioner had not been cross-examined on this issue. Respondent-department on its own had not elaborated the above issue in the evidence led by it. Accordingly, it was held that workmen junior to the petitioner had been retained and fresh hand also been engaged in violation of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act. However, substantial relief claimed by the petitioner was declined on ground of considerable delay in petitioner’s raising the dispute, which had not been explained. Accordingly, the respondent was directed to only pay lump sum compensation of ₹25,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and all other benefits under the award passed on 31.07.2023. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 5 2026:HHC:29786 4. In State of Uttar Pradesh versus Krishna Murari Sharma2, there were 15 years delay in raising the industrial dispute. The State questioned entitlement of the workman to the relief on the ground of delay occasioned in challenging the termination order. It was held that even if there is no challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the reference made of some dispute, this does not prevent or prohibit the employer from raising the question before the Labour Court itself. Mere failure or a conscious decision not to challenge the reference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court on the ground of delay can neither result in the contention being frustrated in every manner nor can there be a ground of acquiescence taken against such plea. Paragraphs relevant to the context are as under:- 8. In the instant case, admittedly no such challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was made against the reference; which does not prevent or prohibit the employer from raising the question before the Labour Court itself. Before going to the series of decisions on the consequences of a delay in seeking reference, we cannot but observe that the mere failure, or a conscious decision not to challenge, the reference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court, on the ground of delay, can neither result in the contention being frustrated in every manner nor can there be a ground of acquiescence taken against such plea. This 2Civil Appeal @ Special Leave Petition(C) No.444/2024, decided on 17.12.2025. 6 2026:HHC:29786 is the purport of the decisions, which we will immediately refer to hereunder. 9. Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Coop. Marketing-cum- Processing Service Society Ltd. and Ors.3 dealt with the question of delay of 7 years in approaching the appropriate Government for a reference, which was found to be fatal by the High Court, the Full Bench of which prescribed a limitation period of 5 years to seek a reference under Section 10 of the ID Act. It was held that the employer’s plea of delay raised against adjudication of an industrial dispute ought to be fortified with proof of real prejudice and otherwise, a bland plea was not sufficient to deny relief to the workman. It was also held that even in cases of proved delay, relief can be moulded by declining whole or part of back wages. Therein, despite the delay the employer failed to raise the ground before the Labour Court and raised it for the first time before the High Court. For all the above reasons, this Court upheld the award of reinstatement and continuity of service, but considering the delay, limited the back wages from the date of issuance of notice of demand till the date of the award, to 60% and thereafter full back wages. 10. Assistant Engineer Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board v. Mohan Lal4 was concerned with a limitation of 6 years. Ajaib Singh3 was held to be not laying down an absolute proposition of law that where plea of delay is not raised by the employer, there would be no justification for moulding the relief. It was held noticing a series of decisions that the Labour Court considering the aspect of delay, at its discretion could mould the relief, since delay in raising an industrial dispute is definitely a circumstance to be reckoned by the Labour Court; though the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the references made under the ID Act. In the said case, in lieu of reinstatement, a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) was directed to be paid. 3(1999) 6 SCC 82. 4(2013) 14 SCC 543. 7 2026:HHC:29786 11. Even Shahaji5 relied on by the respondent- workman accepted the principle that the Labour Court, if finding the termination to be illegal could suitably mould the relief to be granted to the workman in view of the delay. Rajesh Kumar6 was a case in which the ground of stale claim was not raised before the Labour Court and was first urged before the High Court. As we noticed at the outset, in the present case, the failure of the State, or the conscious decision taken not to challenge the order of reference does not deny the employer-State the right to raise that contention before the Labour Court. Moreover, the same had been raised at the first instance before the Labour Court and this is not a case where for the first time the ground of delay was urged before the High Court or before this Court. 12. Learned Senior Counsel for the State has also fairly submitted that he would not be averse to a lumpsum compensation being paid in lieu of the entire back wages as directed by the employer. 13. Taking the entire circumstances into account, especially the fact that there was a 16 year delay in seeking a reference, we are of the opinion that a lumpsum compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and fifty thousand) would suffice. The order of the Labour Court as affirmed by the High Court are both set aside to the extent of reinstatement and award of back wages. While upholding the award regarding the illegality of the termination, reckoning the gross delay caused, a lumpsum compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and fifty thousand) would be paid to the respondent-workman within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If the said sum is not paid within the period stipulated, the State shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of expiry of the two- month period.” Taking into consideration huge delay of 16 years in seeking the reference, the order of learned Labour Court 5(2005)12 SCC 141 6CA No.1343/2003, decided on 18.12.2003. 8 2026:HHC:29786 as affirmed by the High Court was set-aside to the extent of reinstatement, award of back wages and lump sum compensation was awarded to the workman. In the instant case, services of the petitioner had been terminated on 30.11.1999. It was his own case that the termination was preceded by a notice dated 05.11.1999. The petitioner was very well aware that his services had been terminated. Yet he sought reference in the matter 14 years later i.e. in year, 2013. Reference itself records that petitioner had worked as beldar on daily wages for 59 days during the years 1996-98. In the given facts and circumstances, taking note of the huge delay in raising the demand, learned Labour Court did not err in not granting relief of reinstatement. Petitioner’s entitlement to the compensation only to the extent of ₹25,000/- does not call for any interference. The petition fails and is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 21, 2026 Judge yogesh