1 2026:HHC:39178 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 96 of 2026 Decided on: 9.9.2026 HPMC Nigam Vihar & anr. … Petitioners Versus All unskilled Workers & anr. …Respondents _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? yes ___________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioners HPMC, Nigam Vihar, Shimla, through its Managing Director & another have filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 10.10.2025, and subsequent order dated 7.1.2026, passed in Execution Petition No. 5 of 2018, titled as, ‘All Unskilled Workers of HPMC, Jarol versus HPMC, Nigam Vihar, Shimla, passed by the Court 2 2026:HHC:39178 of learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No. 1, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Executing Court’). 2. By way of order dated 10.10.2025, the learned Executing Court, has issued the directions to the respondents/JDs to credit the amount due, as per the document, annexed with letter dated 16.2.2021, within a period of 15 days, and vide order dated 7.1.2026, warrant of attachment was ordered to be issued, qua the property of JD, for realization of Rs. 65,65,763/-. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties to the lis are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court. 4. Necessary facts, as borne out from the documents, annexed with the petition, may be summed up, as under: The Secretary, All Unskilled Workers of HPMC, Food Processing Plant (FPP) Jarol, Sundernagar, Disrict Mandi, has filed the Reference Petition, before the learned Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Dharamshala. 3 2026:HHC:39178 The appropriate Govt. thereafter, made a reference to the Labour Court, which is reproduced, as under: “Whether the demand raised by the Secretary, All Unskilled Workers of HPMC Factory, Jarol, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. with (1) Managing Director, HPMC, Shimla; (2) Manager, HPMC, Jarol and (3) M/s. B.D.M. Company, Jarol, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. for their regularization on completion of 10 years of service as prescribed by taking into consideration their lease period with the B.D.M. Company and further their demand for wages as per their skill, is reasonable and justified. If yes, to what relief of service benefits including regularization, wages and amount of compensation, the above unskilled workers are entitled?" 4.1 The said reference was answered by the learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, vide award dated 28.6.2010, in the following manner: “For the foregoing reasons discussed hereinabove supra, the reference is allowed. It is ordered that the services rendered by the workmen with the respondent no.3 w.e.f. 20.8.1992 till 31.3.1994 will have to be considered and counted for the purpose of the seniority and continuity in service of the workmen. The respondents no. 1 and 2 shall grant all consequential relief arising thereto including regularization as per the policy of State. The reference is answered accordingly. A copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Govt. for publication in the official gazette and the file after completion consigned to the record room.” 4 2026:HHC:39178 4.2 Against the aforesaid award, the Judgment Debtors have filed CWP No. 11762 of 2011, which was dismissed by this Court, vide judgment dated 6.5.2016. 4.3 Thereafter, the Decree Holder has filed the Execution Petition, under Section 11 Sub Section (9) of the Industrial Disputes Act, read with Order 21 CPC, for the enforcement of the Order/award of the learned Tribunal, on 28.6.2010. 4.4 In the said Execution Petition, the Judgment Debtors have filed the objections, under Sections 47 of the CPC. During pendency of the case, Deputy General Manager, HPMC, FPP, Jarol had written a letter to Mr. J.S.Chandel, Senior Advocate, Sundernagar, mentioning therein the eligibility date of 18 unskilled workers, HPMC FPP, Jarol. 4.5 Thereafter, vide order dated 6.3.2025, the Judgment Debtors were permitted to place on record the amended State Policy for regularization of daily waged/contingent paid workers, letter written by Secretary, Horticulture, Government of H.P., office order regarding constitution of the Screening Committee and 5 2026:HHC:39178 the attendance record of the Decree Holder. Thereafter, the learned Executing Court has passed the order dated 10.10.2025, which has been assailed, before this Court. 5. The award has been assailed mainly on the ground that the order dated 10.10.2025 suffers from material irregularity, illegality and non-appreciation of the documents, placed on record. 6. The award has also been assailed on the ground that the learned Executing Court has wrongly ordered the payment of the amount to the accounts of unskilled workers of HPMC, as per the documents appended with the letter dated 16.2.2021. The findings of the learned Executing Court have further been assailed on the ground that it has not appreciated the report of the Screening Committee, constituted by the General Manager, HPMC, FPP, Jarol. 7. Relying upon the report of the Screening Committee, it has been argued that out of 35 unskilled workers, none had completed 240 days, in a year, as mandated by the Regularization policy. 6 2026:HHC:39178 8. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, appearing for the JDs, has prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed and the orders dated 10.10.2025 and 7.1.2026 may kindly be set aside. 9. Per contra, Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the Decree Holder has opposed the prayer, so made, on the ground that the award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court has now attained finality and the same can not be re-opened in execution. 10. The petitioner is before this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, where scope of interference by this Court is very limited. 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in "K. Valarmathi & Ors. Versus Kumaresan”, 2025 INSC 606" has elaborately discussed the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Relevant para 9 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under: "Essence of the power under Article 227 being supervisory, it cannot be invoked to usurp the original jurisdiction of the court which it seeks to supervise. Nor can it be invoked to supplant a statutory legal remedy under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. For example, 7 2026:HHC:39178 existence of appellate remedy under Section 96 of the Code operates as a near total bar to exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227." 12. In a recent decision in "Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. Versus B. Gurappa Naidu & Ors.”, 2026 INSC 434", the scope of interference has again been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Relevant paragraph 35 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:- "35. In short, the principles laid down in the above matters is as follows: a) The power of superintendence under Article 227 is not to be exercised unless there has been an (a) unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in Court or tribunal, or (b) gross abuse of jurisdiction or (c) an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in Courts or tribunals. b) It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this. Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. c) The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is 8 2026:HHC:39178 justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal." 13. Moreover, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot re-assess or review the material, which was taken into consideration, by the learned trial Court. While holding so, the view of this Court is being guided, by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Vinay Raghunath Deshmukh versus Natwarlal Shamji Gada and another, 2026 INSC 416. Relevant paragraph-16 of the judgment is, reproduced, as under:- “16. Yet another aspect that goes to the root of the matter is that the tenants challenged the order passed by the Appellate Bench permitting the amendment by filing a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that in exercise of such jurisdiction, it would not be open for the High Court to review or reassess the material that was taken into consideration by the Court while passing the impugned order. In this regard we may usefully refer to the decision in Raj Kumar Bhatia Vs. Subhash Chander Bhatia, wherein a three Judge Bench of this Court held as under: 9 2026:HHC:39178 “11 ……The High Court has in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution entered upon the merits of the case which was sought to be set up by the appellant in the amendment. This is impermissible. Whether an amendment should be allowed is not dependent on whether the case which is proposed to be set up will eventually succeed at the trial. In enquiring into merits, the High Court transgressed the limitations on its jurisdiction under Article 227. In Sadhna Lodh v National Insurance Company4, this Court has held that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within the parameters of its jurisdiction. In the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or tribunal and it is not open to it to review or reassess the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal has passed an order. The Trial Court had in the considered exercise of its jurisdiction allowed the amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. There was no reason for the High Court to interfere under Article 227.” Thus, the discretion exercised by the Appellate Bench while allowing the amendment was not liable to be interfered with in exercise of the Article 227 of the Constitution of India, especially when there was no error of 10 2026:HHC:39178 jurisdiction nor a statutory bar for permitting the plaint to be amended based on subsequent events.” (Self emphasis supplied) 14. Being guided by the above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, now, this Court would proceed further to ascertain the fact, whether the orders, passed by the learned Executing Court, on 10.10.2025 and 7.1.2026, require any interference, by this Court. 15. The Judgment Debtors have written a letter to their counsel on 16.2.2021, mentioning therein about the amount, which was due in favour of 18 unskilled workers, working with HPMC, FPP, Jarol and thereafter, they have taken the summersault by constituting a screening committee, that too, during the pendency of the execution petition. Vide letter dated 16.2.2021, the Decree Holder has submitted the tentative salary details of 18 unskilled workers of HPMC, FPP, Jarol, as well as, the eligibility date of 18 unskilled workers, HPMC, FPP, Jarol. Thereafter, they have taken the summersault by constituting the committee. The said committee, vide its report, has re-assessed the entitlement of 35 daily wage 11 2026:HHC:39178 workers. The said approach of the Judgment Debtors has rightly been negated by the learned Executing Court, vide order dated 10.10.2025. Not only this, the learned Executing Court has also expressed its concern about the manner, in which, the Court matters are being dealt with, by the Judgment Debtors. Relevant portion of the order is re-produced as under: “At the outset, it is worthwhile to mention here that submitting a document and making a proposal before the Court is a serious matter. Documents once filed before the Court containing certain averments cannot be withdrawn in a casual manner without placing on record all the relevant documents. In the present case, the respondents placed on record a list of 18 unskilled workers with the details of their tentative salary dues and the date of their eligibility. Those documents were duly submitted before the Court through the learned counsel duly representing the respondents. This proposal was accepted on behalf of the petitioner/DH, and, vide order dated 06.03.2021, durection was accordingly passed to the respondents/JDs to credit the amount due within three days. This order has neither been complied with nor has been challenged and hence attained finality.” 16. In this case, the Decree Holder has filed reply. Alongwith the reply, he has annexed the mandays chart of the workers, working with HPMC, FPP, Jarol, which 12 2026:HHC:39178 has been obtained, under the Right to Information Act by Tulsi Ram. It seems that in this case, under the garb of constitution of the Screening Committee, the Judgment Debtors want to re-open the matter again, which has attained finality, which is not permissible, under the law. 17. Considering all these facts, there is no substance in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. 18. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present application. 19. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. (Virender Singh) 9.9.2026 Judge Kalpana