2026:HHC:11195 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.4932 of 2026 Decided on: 09.04.2026 _________________________________________________________________ The Executive Engineer, HPPWD ....Petitioner Versus Tula Ram …Respondent _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Nemo Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner-State feels aggrieved against the award passed by the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal Kangra at Dharamshala, allowing the reference of the respondent-workman under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act in short). In terms of the award, petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent-workman. Respondent was also held entitled to seniority and continuity 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2026:HHC:11195 - 2 - in service from the date of illegal termination alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum. 2. Following reference was sent for adjudication to the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal:- “Whether the dispute raised by the petitioner Shri Tula Ram S/O Shri Kalu Ram, R/O V.P.O. Sadhote, Tehsil H.P. vide Sarkaghat, District Mandi 06.03.2010 demand notice dated regarding termination of his daily wages services w.e.f. 08.7.2005 suffers from long delay and laches? If yes, what are its consequences? If not, what kind of relief he is entitled to?” Petitioner had earlier preferred claim petition directly before the learned Labour Court on 15.02.2011 under Section 2A of the Act. The said application was dismissed on 29.08.2011 on the ground of having not been moved within the period of limitation. Further, the Labour Commissioner on 07.04.2012 declined to refer the dispute raised by the petitioner for adjudication again on ground of delay. Petitioner laid challenge to the order dated 07.04.2012 in CWP No.1862 of 2017. The writ petition was decided on 28.06.2022. The Labour Commissioner was directed to make reference. The directions issued in the aforesaid writ petition were not complied with. Respondent- 2026:HHC:11195 - 3 - workman filed Execution Petition No.303 /2024 in this Court. The same was decided on 05.09.2024 with directions to comply the judgment dated 28.06.2022 within six months. It is pursuant to the above decision that Labour Commissioner sent the reference of petitioner’s case for adjudication to the learned Labour Court on 18.09.2024. The case set up by the respondent-workman was that:- 2(i) His services were engaged by the petitioner-Public Works Department on daily wage basis w.e.f. 01.01.1999. He worked continuously without any break whatsoever up to 07.07.2005. He had completed 240 days of service in 12 calendar months preceding the date of his illegal retrenchment on 08.07.2005. Respondent, during the course of his examination, asserted that though retrenchment compensation of Rs.11055/- was paid to him but he had returned it later to the Department. 2(ii) The respondent alleged in his claim petition that the petitioner had not followed the principle of ‘last come first go’. Many persons juniors to him, had been retained in 2026:HHC:11195 - 4 - service by the petitioner-State. The respondent workman put forth the case of breach of Section 25(G) of the Act. The workman also alleged engagement of fresh hands by the petitioner after his retrenchment. Names of fresh recruitees were also given in the claim petition. Respondent- workman also asserted that some persons, whose services had been retrenched alongwith him, had been reinstated by the petitioner pursuant to adjudication of the references in their favour. It was asserted that respondent-workman was similarly situated and entitled to same relief and treatment as given to such workmen. Respondent-workman alleged violation of Section 25(H) of the Act as well. It was further the case of the respondent that besides him, petitioner-State had retrenched the services of 1087 workmen; More than 800 workmen had been reinstated by the petitioner and had also paid Rs.50,000/- compensation to them in compliance of the awards passed in their favour. On the above facts and pleadings, the respondent- workman prayed for setting aside of the order dated 2026:HHC:11195 - 5 - 08.07.2005 with further prayer to reinstate him with back wages, seniority, continuity in service alongwith all consequential benefits. 2(iii) Petitioner did not dispute respondent having been engaged as daily waged beldar on muster roll basis w.e.f. 01.01.1999 or that he had completed 240 days of work in 12 calendar months preceding his retrenchment on 08.07.2005. Petitioner also admitted that services of the respondent- workman had been retrenched on 08.07.2005 alongwith 1087 others. Petitioner, however, defended retrenching services of the respondent as according to them, it was lawful and compensation due to him as per applicable rules had been paid. The main plank of petitioner’s defence was alleged delay on part of respondent-workman in raising the industrial dispute. 2(iv) The parties led evidence in support of their respective stands. On considering the entire case, learned Labour Court allowed the claim petition to the extent indicated above. Feeling aggrieved against award dated 23.09.2025, petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 2026:HHC:11195 - 6 - 3. I have learned Additional Advocate Geneal and considered the case file. 4. In my considered view, the award passed by the learned Labour Court does not call for any interference. Facts and evidence as appreciated by learned Labour Court have not been disputed before me. It was admitted case of the petitioner-State that the respondent-workman had been engaged by them w.e.f. 01.01.1999 and he continued to serve up to 07.07.2005 that too with completion of 240 days in each calendar year prior to termination of his services. Er. Vivek Sharma, who stepped in the witness-box as RW-1, specifically admitted this fact. He also admitted the suggestion given to him that one Sh. Shashi Kant, who was engaged in January 2000 i.e. after the respondent’s engagement, was allowed to continue to serve post retrenching respondent’s services. This deposition established that the persons junior to the respondent- workman had been retained by the petitioner in violation of provisions of the Act. Further, a suggestion was given to petitioner’s witness about the respondent-workman having returned the retrenchment compensation. Learned Labour 2026:HHC:11195 - 7 - Court drew correct inference on the basis of evidence produced before it that though the evidence pointed towards the fact that that compensation under Section 25 (N) was received by the respondent-workman, but there was no cogent evidence on record of its return or re-deposition with petitioner-employer. Be that as it may. Petitioner had not followed the principle of last come first go. The services of fresh hands were also engaged by the petitioner, but opportunity of re-employment was not given to the respondent-workman. No notice in this regard issued by the petitioner to respondent-workman was produced. The learned Labour Court drew justiciable conclusion that petitioner had terminated the services of the respondent- workman in an illegal and unjustified manner without following the mandatory provisions of the Act. Scope for interference with the awards passed by learned Labour Court was summed up in K.V.S. Ram Vs. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation2 as under:- “14. Once the Labour Court has exercised the discretion judicially, the High Court can interfere with the award, 2 (2015) 12 SCC 39 2026:HHC:11195 - 8 - only if it is satisfied that the award of the Labour Court is vitiated by any fundamental flaws. We do not find that the award passed by the Labour Court suffers from any such flaws. While interfering with the award of the Labour Court, the High Court did not keep in view the parameters laid down by this Court for exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India and the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.” In Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi Vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd.3 Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court can interfere with an Order of the Tribunal only on the procedural level and in cases, where the decision of the lower courts has been arrived at in gross violation of the legal principles. The High Court shall interfere with factual aspect placed before the Labour Courts only when it is convinced that the Labour Court has made patent mistakes in admitting evidence illegally or have made grave errors in law in coming to the conclusion on facts. The High Court granting contrary relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution amounts to exceeding its jurisdiction conferred upon it. The ground of delay on part of respondent in raising the industrial dispute, taken by the petitioner was 3 (2014)11 SCC 85 2026:HHC:11195 - 9 - justly turned down by the learned Labour Court. It was a case where the respondent-workman had been taking legal recourse throughout after retrenchment of his services (as discussed in para-2 above). Furthermore, it is also a matter of record and not disputed by the petitioner that in cases of similarly situated workmen, awards had been passed, ordering their reinstatement alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/-, the respondent-workman was similarly situated. In view of above, no case for interference with the impugned award is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge April 9, 2026 R.Atal