IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.35 of 2026 Reserved on : 06.04.2026 Decided on : 09.04.2026 Uploaded on : 09.04.2026 HPSEBL and Anr. ...Appellants. Versus Deep Ram …Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Ms. Sunita Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Saurav Upadhay and Mr. Mohit, Advocates. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 17.09.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.2269 of 2023, titled Deep Ram Vs. HPSEBL and Anr., whereby present appellants have been directed to pay 50% wages to the present respondent in the pay scale of Rs.2720-4775/- with effect from 15.09.2003 to 13.09.2009 and full wages from 14.09.2009 in the corresponding revised scale. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the case at hand are that the respondent had been engaged by the appellant on a daily 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- wage basis as a Beldar on 21.08.1995. The respondent had thereafter worked till 15.06.1996 without any break. The petitioner had completed 240 days in a calendar year. The services of the respondent/petitioner were orally terminated by appellant No.2 with effect from 15.06.1996 without assigning any reason and without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. In the aforesaid backdrop, the respondent along with similarly situate submitted demand notices individually to the Conciliation Officer, Solan. Conciliation proceedings thereof failed. Finally, the below mentioned reference was received in the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Shimla:- “Whether the termination of services of S/Shri Ranjeet Singh, S/o Chet Ram, Hari Singh, S/o Shri Kami Ram, Narayan Singh, S/o Shri Bhoop Singh, Rama Nand, S/o Shri Ddaya Ram, Om Singh, S/o Shri Dewa Ram, Rajinder Singh S/o Shri Bhoop Singh, Deep Ram, S/o Shri Budh Ram, Khajan Singh, S/o Shri Kalu Ram w.e.f. 15.6.1996 after the completion of 240 days or continuous service by the Executing Engineer, HP State Electrical Board Division Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, HP without complying the Section 25- F/25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what relief of service -3- benefits and amount of compensation, the above said eight workmen are entitled to?” 4. In pursuance thereto, parties filed their respective pleadings. Based on the pleadings, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the termination of services of petitioners by respondent No.1 w.e.f. 15.6.1996 is violative of Sections 25-F/25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? OPP…. 2. Whether reference is not maintainable. OPR… 3. Whether the petition suffers from delay and laches and if so its effect? OPR.. 4. Whether the petitioners had obtained the job as alleged? OPR… 5. Relief. 5. Insofar as the respondent/petitioner is concerned, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla vide its judgment dated 12.08.2008, held that since the respondent had completed 240 working days in the calendar year preceding his termination, as such the disengagement of the respondent by appellant No.2 was in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Other than the aforesaid, the petition filed by the respondent before the Industrial Tribunal -4- (Labour Court) was held to be maintainable, insofar as delay and laches is concerned, by placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ajayab Singh Vs. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Limited and Anr. reported in (1999) 6 SC 82, wherein it was held that there is no limitation under the Industrial Disputes Act. The petition filed by the respondent before the Labour Court was held to be not barred by delay and latches. On the issue of abandonment raised by the appellants before the Labour Court, since no evidence had been led by the appellants, therefore, the same was decided against the appellants. 7. Feeling aggrieved of the same, CWP No.2037 of 2008 was preferred by the present appellants. The same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 16.08.2012. Against the aforesaid dismissal, two LPAs bearing No.43 and 44 of 2013 had been preferred. The same were decided on 30.04.2014. The appeal preferred by the appellants was allowed on the ground that though limitation is not applicable to a Reference made under the Industrial Disputes Act, however, delay in raising an industrial dispute is definitely an important circumstance, which the Labour Court must keep in view at the time of exercise of discretion -5- irrespective of whether or not such objection has been raised by the other side. 8. Other than the aforesaid, the Division Bench which decided the LPAs, was of the view that question as to whether the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days or not, had not been gone into, therefore, re-engagement ordered by the Labour Court was held to be unjustified. In the aforesaid backdrop, the Award dated 12.08.2008, in Reference No.151 of 2001, titled Narayan Singh and Ors. Vs. The HPSEBL and Ors. (Wherein the respondent was one of the petitioners) was quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for a fresh adjudication. 9. Post-remand on 02.06.2014, the Reference No.151 of 2001 previously instituted on 09.08.2001, was re- registered. The same was decided on 14.08.2014. On remand, the Labour Court post consideration of the material on record, concluded that the respondent/petitioner had completed more than 240 working days in a calendar year preceding his termination. Further it was held that the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act had not been complied with as neither one month notice had been -6- issued to the respondent in writing nor in lieu of such notice wages for the period of notice had been paid, hence, the disengagement of the respondent was held to be illegal and unjustified. On the issue of delay, it was held that there was no delay on the part of the respondent in raising the claim in the case at hand. The plea of abandonment raised by the present appellants was found to be bereft of any merit, as it remained unsubstantiated. 10. The respondent was held entitled to be reinstated in service, forthwith with seniority, continuity from the date of his illegal retrenchment i.e. 15.6.1996, along with back wages @ 50%. 11. In the aforesaid backdrop, respondent was given work charge status on the post of T-Mate on 16.07.2015. Thereafter, he was brought on the regular cadre of T-Mate on 19.03.2018. 12. In the case at hand the respondent had joined as a Beldar on daily wage basis on 21.08.1995, and had been illegally terminated on 15.06.1996. Moreso keeping in view the judgment of the Labour Court dated 14.08.2014, whereby the respondent had been granted seniority with continuity -7- along with back wages at the rate of 50% from the date of illegal retrenchment i.e. 15.06.1996, the respondent claimed to have completed 8 years of service on 21.08.2003, hence, claimed regularization/conferment of work charge status from the said date, in view of the regularization policy along with all regular consequential benefits. 13. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the respondent preferred an Original Application with the erstwhile Tribunal bearing OA No.3400 of 2018 seeking direction of regularization/work charge status from 21.08.2003 as per the Regularization Policy dated 08.07.1999. The aforesaid OA was disposed of by the learned Tribunal on 12.03.2019 with a direction to the appellants to extend the benefits of CWP No.4228 of 2010, titled Ghanshyam Vs. HPSEBL, to the petitioner being similarly situate. 14. In pursuance to the aforesaid direction of the erstwhile Tribunal, an office order dated 12.07.2019 (Annexure P-9) was passed by the appellants, whereby the work charge status was granted to the respondent w.e.f. 15.09.2003 to 15.07.2015 on a notional basis. In the -8- aforesaid backdrop, petition bearing CWP No.2269 of 2023, titled Deep Ram Vs. HPSEBL and Anr. was filed by the present respondent, wherein the main grievance of the respondent was that the benefit of the Award dated 14.08.2014, in the matter of continuity of service had not been granted while considering the claim of the respondent for conferment of work charge status, especially when the Industrial Tribunal had granted continuity of service in the Award dated 14.08.2014 and since the Award had become final, therefore, the respondent was entitled to count his service for the purpose of conferment of work charge status. In this respect attention is invited to a judgment of a Coordinate Division Bench, passed in CWP No.4228 of 2010, titled Ghanshyam Vs. HPSEBL and Anr., decided on 23.07.2010, wherein the period for which the workmen had been kept out of work, had been ordered to be counted on account of continuity in service, granted by the Industrial Tribunal. 15. The contention of “No Work No Pay” has been correctly rejected by the learned Single Judge in the facts of the case at hand. In this respect, it would be appropriate to refer to the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in -9- Union of India and Ors. Vs. K.V. Jankiraman and Others (1991) 4 SCC 109. The relevant extract reads as follow:- “25………The normal rule of “no work no pay” is not applicable to cases such as the present one where the employee although he is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his……….” 16. Other than the aforesaid, once continuity of service had been awarded by the Labour Court and the same had attained finality, the respondent was definitely entitled to 50% back wages with effect from 2003, as has been held by the learned Single Judge. The case of the respondent was squarely covered by the judgment passed by Coordinate Division Bench in CWP No.4228 of 2010, titled Ghanshyam Vs. HPSEBL and Anr., decided on 23.07.2010 (Annexure P-8). 17. Thus, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not erred in any manner in allowing the writ petition and we also do not find any plausible reason to take a different view. Therefore, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit and the judgment passed by learned Single Judge is upheld. -10- The present appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) (Bipin Chander Negi) Chief Justice Judge 09th April, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)