New Dhauldhar Taxi Operators Union & another vs. State of H.P. & Ors. CMP(M) No.1428 of 2026 03.09.2026 Present: Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate, for the applicants/appellants. Mr. B.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents /State. The present appeal has been filed by the applicants/appellants, as Regular First Appeal under Section 11(4) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (for short “the Act”), against the order dated 05.10.2024, passed by the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, HP. However, the Registry has raised objection that prima facie Regular First Appeal is not maintainable as the provision of Section 11 does not provide for filing any further appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and also gone through the record of the case. At this stage, it would be relevant to reproduce Section 11(4) of the Act, which reads as under:- “11…………………. (4) In the event of the dismissal of an appeal by any Court appointed under clause (b) of sub-section (1) the person aggrieved shall have a right of appeal to the High Court, and the High Court shall, for the purpose of such appeal, have all the powers of an appellate Court under sub-sections (2) and (3), and the provisions of those sub- sections shall apply accordingly.” Thus, the aforesaid provision shows that the person aggrieved shall have a right of appeal to the High Court in the event of dismissal of appeal by any Court appointed under Clause (b) of sub-section (1). However, the impugned order has not been passed by any Court appointed under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 11, rather the same has been passed by the Labour Court- cum-Industrial Tribunal appointed under Clause (aa) of sub-section (1) of Section 11. Hence, the bare perusal of sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, shows that the second appeal against the order passed by the Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal appointed under Clause (aa) of sub- section (1) of Section 11, is not maintainable. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed being not maintainable. However, the appellants are at liberty to avail appropriate remedy as available to them under the law for redressal of their grievances, if any. In the above terms, the present appeal is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge September 03, 2026 (reena)