ORDER :

1. Both the above captioned petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, lay challenge to award dated 3.9.2015 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla (in short “the Tribunal”) whereby the learned Tribunal below while ordering reinstatement of the respondents-claimants in CWP No. 2280 of 2016 and petitioners in CWP No. 841 of 2017, with seniority and continuity, refused to grant back wages.

2. For the sake of brevity, facts of CWP No. 2280 of 2016 are being taken notice herein below and for more clarity, parties shall be referred as employer and claimants herein after.

3. For having bird’s eye view, certain undisputed facts, as emerge from the record are that claimants, who were appointed on daily wage basis in the respondent-department, in the month of March, 1996, August, 2006 and 27.4.2008, respectively, made representation to the Labour Inspector, Paonta Sahib, vide application dated 28.5.2009, with regard to weekly rest. Since no action came to be taken by the Labour Inspector, Paonta Sahib, on the demand raised by the claimants, they served upon the competent authority notice under Section 7A of The Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, however, in the meantime, their services were terminated on 7.8.2009.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied on account of their termination, claimants approached this Court by way of CWP No. 3000 of 2009, titled Dev Raj and Another vs. State of H.P. and Others, which came to be disposed of, vide judgment dated 2.1.2010. Coordinate Bench of this Court, while allowing the aforesaid petition, directed the respondents to reengage the claimants forthwith, however, observed in the judgment that reengagement of the petitioner shall abide by the outcome of the proceedings initiated under the Act. After disposal of the aforesaid petition filed by the claimants, the appropriate government, under Section 10 of the Act, made following reference to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla:

“Whether termination of the services of Shri Dev Raj S/o Shri Punnu Ram, Sharafat Ali S/o Shri Mohd. Ali, Firoz Khan S/o Shri Aagar Ali and Ms. Rukmani Devi D/o Shri Netar Singh by The Fruit Technologist Dhaula Kaun, Tehsil Paonta Sahib District Sirmour, HP w.e.f. 7.8.2009, without issuing chargesheet, conducting enquiry and without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what service benefits and relifs the above named workmen are entitled to from the above employer?”

5. Claimants filed claim petition before the Tribunal below, averring therein that they were engaged by the respondent-department in the month of March, 1996, 3.10.2007, August, 2006 and April, 2008, respectively, and since their appointment, they had been regularly rendering their services, but suddenly without any rhyme and reason, on 7.8.2009, their services were illegally terminated without applying the mandatory provisions of the Act. Claimants claimed that before termination, neither they were served the notice under Section 25 of the Act, nor they were paid compensation, if any, in lieu of the notice. Since despite repeated requests, no heed was paid to the requests of the claimants for their reengagement, they were compelled to file aforesaid CWP against the respondent- department, wherein admittedly, this Court while ordering reengagement of the claimants ordered that order of reengagement shall abide by the outcome of the proceedings, if any, pending before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. Claimants claimed that pursuant to orders passed by the High Court in CWP No. 3000 of 2019, they were reengaged and since then, they have been regularly working, but respondents have not paid them complete wages from the date of their re-engagement till date and their services were terminated with a view to teach them lesson for raising their legitimate demand in the competent court of law. Claimants also