Executive Engineer, I & PH Division, Dalhousie vs Sh. Amar Singh

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(HP) 964

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, C.J., BIPIN C. NEGI, J.

The Executive Engineer, I & PH Division, Dalhousie - Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Amar Singh – Respondent
LPA No. 560 of 2026 a/w LPA Nos. 561, 569 & 582 of 2026
Decided On : 14-10-2026

Important Points

An application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is maintainable for calculating wages from the date of a reinstatement award to actual re-engagement if the employer delayed implementation through unsuccessful litigation, as the entitlement flows from a pre-existing right.

Subject

Labour and Industrial Law - Industrial Disputes Act

Act Referred

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT : S.11(9), S.17(b), S.25(g), S.25(h), S.33(c)(2)

Headnote

(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33-C(2) - Section 17-B - Section 25-G and 25-H - Jurisdiction of Labour Court - Computation of money due - Workman entitled to reinstatement - Delay in implementation due to unsuccessful litigation by employer - Whether wages for the intervening period from the date of award to the date of actual re-engagement can be computed under Section 33-C(2) - The Labour Court's jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) is similar to that of an executing Court and can interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based - An application is maintainable where the workman is entitled to receive money or a benefit capable of being computed in terms of money - If the benefit sought is a pre-existing benefit or flows from a pre-existing right, the Labour Court has the authority to compute the amount - An employee cannot be made to suffer when the employer litigates unsuccessfully and delays reinstatement - The order of reinstatement relates back to the original order passed by the Labour Court.

(B) Beneficial Legislation - The Industrial Disputes Act is a piece of beneficial legislation enacted to ameliorate the difficulties of workmen - An employer cannot benefit from its own failure to implement an award for a prolonged period and cannot shirk the responsibility of paying wages for the intervening period when the delay is attributable to the employer.

Facts of the case:
A workman was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and seniority by the Labour Court. The employer challenged this award through a writ petition, a letters patent appeal, and a special leave petition, all of which were dismissed. Reinstatement was only effected after the workman initiated execution proceedings which led to the issuance of attachment warrants against the employer's property. Subsequently, the workman filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to quantify the wages due for the intervening period between the passing of the award and the date of actual re-engagement. The Labour Court allowed the application and quantified the amount, which was subsequently upheld by a Single Judge.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the workman remained unemployed and was not gainfully employed during the intervening period. Since there was no stay order operating and the delay in joining was due to the employer's deliberate failure to implement the award despite unsuccessful litigation, the workman was entitled to wages as per the regular pay scale for the said period.

Issues: Whether an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is maintainable for the computation of wages for the period between the date of an award for reinstatement and the actual date of re-engagement when the delay was caused by the employer's unsuccessful legal challenges.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that whereas a claim for back wages not granted in an award requires a reference under Section 10, a claim for wages resulting from the employer's failure to implement a granted right of reinstatement constitutes a pre-existing right. Section 33-C(2) is applicable when the benefit is capable of being computed in money and flows from such a pre-existing right. When an employer delays reinstatement through litigation and eventually fails, the employee is entitled to the benefits of that reinstatement relating back to the original award.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.

The present judgment shall dispose of four Letters Patent Appeals, i.e. LPA No.560 of 2026, titled as the Executive Engineer, I&PH Division, Dalhousie Vs. Amar Singh, arising out of the judgment passed in CWP No. 5629 of 2026, LPA No.561 of 2026, titled as the Executive Engineer, I&PH Division, Dalhousie Vs. Kamal Nath, arising out of CWP No. 5623 of 2026, LPA No.569 of 2026, titled as the Executive Engineer, I&PH Division, Dalhousie Vs. Chaman Singh, arising out of CWP No. 5624 of 2026, all dated 22.04.2026 and LPA No.582 of 2026, arising out of the judgment passed in CWP No. 6933 of 2026, dated 07.05.2026.

2. The learned Single Judge, in sum and substance, has upheld the orders passed by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal Kangra at Dharamshala, (for short ‘the Labour Court’), dated 16.09.2025 (in LPA Nos. 560 of 2026, 561 of 2026 and 569 of 2026) and dated 17.10.2025 in LPA No. 582 of 2026, whereby applications filed by the respondents-workmen under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) had been allowed and directions had been issued that the workmen were entitled to the quantified amount towards full wages from the date of the award to the date of their re-engagement alongwith interest @ 6% per annum till its realization.

3. The reasoning given by the learned Single Judge to uphold the said order passed under Section 33- C(2) of the Act was that the Award had been subject matter of an unsuccessful challenge, firstly, by way of a Writ Petition and secondly, by way of a Letters Patent Appeal, and thereafter by way of a Special Leave Petition. The workmen had resorted to execution proceedings on account of the Civil Court having directed so. Since the workmen were eventually reinstated during the pendency of the litigation, in such circumstances, they were entitled to claim wages for the intervening period during which they were kept out of service, despite being successful in the Award.

4. The argument which has been raised by the learned Counsel for the State is that the applications filed under Section 33-C (2) of the Act were not maintainable and, therefore, the Labour Court erred as such in entertaining the said applications.

5. Keeping in view the fact that the question of law is similar, we take the facts from LPA No. 560 of 2026, which arises out of Civil Writ Petition No. 5629 of 2026, in the case of Amar Singh.

6. The undisputed facts are that the workman, having been employed as a daily-waged Beldar in July, 1995, had found himself unemployed on account of the termination notice dated 09.11.2000. Resultantly, a Reference was made to the Labour Court by the State as to whether the termination was justified and whether the employee was entitled to back wages, seniority, past service benefits, etc.

7. The Labour Court vide its order dated 14.05.2013, came to the conclusion that there was a violation of the provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act and resultantly, directed the immediate reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and seniority from the date of his termination i.e. 15.11.2000, while denying back wages. Directions were also issued to the respondent-State to consider the case of the workman for the regularization of his services in accordance with the policies framed by the State Government from time to time.

8. The Award was subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 4370 of 2014, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & another Vs. Amar Singh, wherein it was noticed that juniors as such had been employed and that the workman had duly completed 240 days in each calendar year from 1996 to 2000. Resultantly, the writ petition was dismissed on 20.08.2016.

9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the State had filed LPA No. 59 of 2018, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & another Vs. Amar Singh, which had also been dismissed on 12.12.2018.

10. Thereafter, the State preferred an