2026:HHC:15028 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10756 of 2023 Decided on: 6th May, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sunil Kumar …..Petitioner Versus The Chief Executive Officer, Shimla Environment Heritage Conservation and Beautification Society .....Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Kamlender Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner feels aggrieved against the award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 01.07.2023, whereby the reference sent by the Appropriate Government was answered against him. 2. Facts:- 2(i). Following reference was sent by the Appropriate Government for adjudication to the learned Labour Court:- “Whether termination of the services of Sh. Sunil Kumar, S/o Shri Dhyan Singh, R/o Village Tharu, P.O. Shari, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla HP by the Chief 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:15028 Executive Officer, Shimla Environment Heritage Conservation and Beautification Society (SEHB) Municipal Corporation Shimla, HP w.e.f. 10.04.2013 allegedly without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what relief of reinstatement, back wages, compensation, seniority and other service benefits the above aggrieved worker is entitled to from the above employer/society?” 2(ii). Petitioner filed his statement of claim averring therein that he was engaged as Supervisor with the respondent-Society vide an agreement executed on 19.01.2011. Petitioner’s engagement under the agreement was on yearly basis, renewable from time to time based upon performance. The agreement was renewed by the respondent, however, the petitioner served as Garbage Collector with no one under him. His services were terminated by the respondent on 11.04.2013 without issuing any show cause notice and without holding any inquiry for the oral reason assigned that his conduct was not good. Petitioner alleged breach of provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short ‘the Act’) by the respondent. 2(iii). Respondent filed reply, inter alia, taking the defense that the petitioner had issued receipts bearing Nos.610270 dated 10.11.2012 and 0647993, dated 12.12.2012 as user collection charges in the sum of 3 2026:HHC:15028 Rs.300/- each, whereas, in the carbon copies of the receipts supplied to the respondent, the amount mentioned was Rs.200/-. The petitioner had executed an agreement with the respondent on 11.01.2012 at the time of his engagement. Clause 9 thereof provided that in case work, conduct and behavior of the petitioner was not found satisfactory, his services shall be liable to be terminated automatically by the respondent without issuance of any notice. In view of embezzlement and misconduct on part of the petitioner, the respondent terminated his services on 12.04.2013 without issuing any notice. Such action of the respondent was within the terms of the agreement executed between the parties. 2(iv). Parties led evidence in respect of their respective stands. On considering the case, learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court returned the factual findings that the petitioner had admitted having tendered an unconditional apology to the respondent. He was issued an order on 10.04.2013 by the respondent determining his services on ground of embezzlement. The order was signed by the petitioner. Since the petitioner had admitted having tendered the apology, there was no question of applicability of provisions of Section 25 of the Act. Learned Labour Court 4 2026:HHC:15028 also held that the petitioner was found to have indulged in misappropriation of funds as was proved by the receipts proved on record alongwith carbon copies thereof. Primarily for this reason, learned Labour Court concluded that petitioner’s services were justly terminated by the respondent and answered the reference against him. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. Learned counsel on both sides have referred to the evidence led by the parties. Reliance placed by the learned Labour Court upon the so called admission made by the petitioner appears to be far-fetched and disconnected in the context in which the said statement was made. The said ‘admission’ was made by the petitioner in the course of his cross-examination. The entire cross- examination of the petitioner conducted by the respondent reads as under:- “I worked in the SEHB Society as supervisor from the year 2011 to 2013. I used to collect garbage charges in the field. It is incorrect that I issued the receipt to the owner worth Rs.300/- and deposited the carbon copy in the office worth Rs.200/-. It is incorrect that I signed the undertaking that in case of any misconduct I shall be removed from the services. I do not remember that surety bond to this effect was also fulfilled. I do not know that the society and the owner had suffered loss on account of issuance of forged receipts. It is correct that an agreement was executed between me and the respondent. It is incorrect that 5 2026:HHC:15028 there was condition in the agreement that in case of any embezzlement I shall be removed from services. It is correct that I tender an apology to the respondent. Self stated that I was not informed that my services are being terminated. It is incorrect that I have not completed 240 days in a calendar months. It is incorrect that I filed a false case.” The words ‘It is correct that I tender an apology to the respondent’ cannot be construed to mean that the petitioner had admitted having issued the receipts for Rs.300/-, but depositing the carbon copy in the office of respondent for Rs.200/-. Petitioner has not admitted the projection of the respondent with respect to receipts having been issued, reflecting the same to be of Rs.300/- and depositing carbon copies thereof in respondent’s office mentioning Rs.200/- by way of overwriting etc. In the background of petitioner’s entire statement including his examination-in-chief and claim, extending apology during the course of cross-examination, could also imply a prayer for reinstatement made by the employee to the employer without prejudice to his rights and contentions. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention to the statements of Sh. Davinder Pal Singh (RW-2) and Sh. Laik Ram Verma (RW-1). RW-2 was given the suggestion that signatures in the receipts were different. He, while denying the suggestion, self stated that 6 2026:HHC:15028 one receipt bore the initials, whereas on the other, there were signatures. He also admitted that original receipts were not in custody of the respondent. That those were issued to the concerned persons and were collected from such persons later on. He has also admitted that no letter was issued by the respondent to such persons for returning the receipts. How the receipts were collected by the respondent has not come from the evidence on record. He has also admitted that no complaint was received against the petitioner. The persons to whom the receipts were issued or the persons from whom the receipts were supposedly collected by the respondent were not examined. Their statements were admittedly not recorded by the officials of the respondent even while collecting the receipts. These relevant threads of evidence have not been appreciated by the learned Labour Court while deciding petitioner’s claim. All these aspects were also required to be considered while appreciating the claim filed by the petitioner. 5. Since the award does not discuss the above facets, therefore, the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned award dated 01.07.2023 (Annexure P-5) is set aside. The matter is remanded to the 7 2026:HHC:15028 learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla for fresh decision in accordance with law. Parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to remain present before the learned Labour Court on 29.05.2026. Records of the case be returned forthwith. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 06, 2026 Judge Mukesh