IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

LPA No. 172 of 2024 Decided on: 27th November, 2024 Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and another .......Appellants Versus Tek Chand ...Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 No.

For the appellants: Ms.Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr.Anirudh Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, ACJ (Oral)

The writ respondents (appellants herein), aggrieved by the judgment dated 29th September, 2022 passed in CWP No. 1912 of 2021 by the learned writ Court, has filed the instant appeal.

2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as they were before the learned writ Court.

3. The petitioner had filed the writ petition for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

“(i) That the impugned award (i.e. annexure P-1) ignoring the rightful claim qua grant of back wages during the period of termination till re-instatement in the respondent department by the Ld. Court below be allowed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent department.

(ii) That the respondent department be further directed to comply with the award in letter and spirit and grant seniority to the petitioner as per his entitlement in the respondent department.”

4. It was averred that the petitioner was engaged as Beldar with the respondent-Department (appellants herein) on 01.04.1994 and continued as such uptil 25.03.1998, when his services were terminated illegally, while his juniors were continued in service. On these grounds, he had raised demand before the appropriate Government, leading to the following reference:-

“Whether the termination of services of Shri Tek Chand S/o Shri Kalu Ram workman by the Resident Engineer, H.P.S.E.B, Bassi Power House, Teh. Joginder Nagar, Mandi, H.P. w.e.f. 26.3.1998 without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as alleged by the workman is proper and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits and amount of compensation the above aggrieved workman is entitled to?”

5. The parties led evidence and after evaluating the same, the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court partly allowed the reference and the respondents were directed to re-engage the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner was also held entitled to seniority and continuity in service from the date of his illegal disengagement, but without any back wages.

6. The award was passed on 22.07.2011, but the petitioner did not choose to assail the same for over a period of nine years uptil 22.11.2020, when he filed the writ petition before the writ Court.

7. The respondents contested the petition by filing reply, wherein, number of preliminary submissions like the petitioner having no enforceable cause of action, locus-standi, maintainability of petition, petition barred by the doctrine of delay and laches and acquiescence etc., were raised. On merits, the preliminary submissions so raised were elaborated, while the factual position was not disputed.

8. The learned writ Court allowed the writ petition and the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court was modified to the extent that besides reinstatement, seniority and continuity in service, the workman is also held entitled to 50% of back wages from the date of his illegal retrenchment, though without any interest thereupon.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

10. At the outset, it needs to be observed that the learned writ Court had rejected the plea of there being inordinate delay and laches as raised by the respondents by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648, more particularly, para 7 thereof, which reads as under:-

“7. To summarise, norma