Point of Law: Section 37 of CPC provides Court which passed a decree”, or words to that effect, shall, in relation to execution of decrees, unless there is anything repugnant in subject or context.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

This execution petition has been filed for implementation of judgment passed by Single Bench of this High Court on 3.4.2012 in CWP No. 5030 of 2010 and connected Writ Petitions, seeking certain directions to respondent to pay the emoluments strictly as per bills furnished by Liquidator vide letter dated 31.7.2012, by depositing the same in Registry of this Court.

2. Petitioners or their predecessor-in-interest (hereinafter referred as petitioners) were serving in Central Cooperative Consumers Store, Shimla, who were deployed as Salesmen/Saleswomen at Public Distribution System of Super Bazar being run by HIMFED on management basis at Shimla.

3. Central Cooperative Consumer Store Ltd. Shimla went under liquidation and it had requested HIMFED to take services of petitioners for procurement and distribution of control articles vide letter dated 10.6.1994. HIMFED vide letter dated 18.6.1994 agreed to utilize 12 shops only for management purpose along with 18 workers (10 salesmen and 8 helpers) and relevant condition No.4 of letter dated 18.6.1994 reads as under:-

“4. The workers employed in the running of these 12 shops will remain on your roll and Himfed will make payment of their salaries through you at the present pay scale being drawn by each worker.”

4. Petitioners preferred petition under Section 72 of Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 before the Registrar, H.P. State Cooperative Societies, who assigned the matter for adjudication to Deputy Registrar (Administration), Cooperative Societies (in short DRC). Claim of petitioners was that they were entitled for revised pay scale with all financial benefits. DRC vide order dated 26.7.2003 had held that petitioners were entitled to revised pay scale without arrears thereof.

5. HIMFED preferred an appeal before the Additional Secretary Cooperation (ASC) against the aforesaid order who decided the matter vide order dated 3.12.2005, which was assailed by HIMFED by filing CWP No. 272 of 2006 and vide order dated 21.6.2007 passed in the said Writ Petition, matter was remanded to ASC for fresh adjudication. ASC assigned the matter to Joint Secretary (Cooperation) who decided the appeal vide order dated 3.12.2007.

6. Order passed by Joint Secretary (Cooperation) was assailed by both, i.e. petitioners as well as HIMFED, by filing CWP Nos. 342 of 2008 and CWP No. 1001 of 2008 respectively. Both these petitions were dismissed vide order dated 3.4.2012 passed by Single Bench of this High Court.

7. In another set of litigation, dispute between petitioners and HIMFED was raised by petitioners before Conciliation Officer to the State Government under Industrial Disputes Act, which was referred to Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court as Reference No. 32 of 2001, which was answered by Labour Court on 15.6.2010, whereby petitioners were held entitled for grant of pay scale, annual increments, additional dearness allowance, interim relief and other regular allowances admissible to them on the basis of revision of pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1996.

8. The aforesaid award dated 15.6.2010 was assailed by HIMFED by filing CWP No. 5030 of 2010. The said petition was allowed by Single Bench of this High Court vide common order dated 3.4.2012 passed in CWP No. 5030 of 2010 along with CWP Nos. 342 of 2008 and 1001 of 2008 and Award dated 15.6.2010, under challenge in CWP No.5030 of 2010, was set aside, whereas order, under challenge in CWPs No.342 of 2008 and 1001 of 2008, passed by Joint Secretary (Cooperation) was upheld.

9. The aforesaid common judgment was assailed by HIMFED as well as employees union of petitioners by filing LPA No. 477 of 2012 titled H.P. State Cooperative Marketing and Consumers Federation Ltd. vs. Registrar Cooperative Societies and others; LPA No. 4053 of 2013 titled H.P. State Cooperative Marketing and Consumers Federation Ltd. vs. General Secretary, Pradhan Employees Union and others; and LPA No. 107 of 2015 titled General Secretary, Pradhan Employ