IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .

CWP No. 2445/2026 Decided on: 12.03.2026 Roop Dei ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents.

……………………………………… …………………………………….

Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.

Jyo tsna Rewal Dua, J The petitioner feels aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala on 09.04.2024, whereby her claim petition was dismissed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the case record.

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

3. Following reference was sent by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the learned Labour Court-cum-

Industrial Tribunal: -

"Whether alleged termination of serviceHs of Smt. Room Dei W/O Shri Nekh Ram Village Tikri Luj Tehsil Pangi, Distt. Chamba, H.P from October, 2003 by the Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division, Pangi at Killar Tehsil Pangi Districft Chamba, H.P. who had worked as beldar on daily wages obasis only for 711 days during the year 1994 to 1997 and 2001 to 2003 and has raised her industrial dispute vide demand notice dated 23/12/2011 after more than 8 years, without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, keeping in view of working period as mentioned above and delay of more than 8 years in raising the industrial dispute, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above ex-

worker is entitled to fro the above.”

Name of the petitioner in the reference was ordered to be corrected by way of an addendum dated 17.05.2022 issued by the appropriate Government.

The case set up by the petitioner was that she was engaged as a Beldar in the respondent-department in the year 1991 and worked with intermittent breaks till 2002; Breaks were deliberately given by the respondents from time to time to ensure that the petitioner would not complete 160 days in each calendar year of her service; Petitioner’s services were terminated orally by the respondents without giving one month's notice and without paying compensation, in violation of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner further contended that the breaks imposed upon her ought to be counted towards continuous service for the purpose of calculating 160 days in terms of Section 25- B of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was also alleged that juniors to her named in the petition had been retained in service continuously without any break, in violation of the principle of “last come first go.”

The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner.

Their defence was that the petitioner had been engaged as a Beldar in the year 1994 and had worked intermittently with the department till 2003, whereafter she left the job voluntarily. The respondents denied petitioner having worked for more than 160 days continuously in any calendar year of her service. Petitioner’s mandays chart was also placed on record. All other allegations levelled by the petitioner were also refuted.

The petitioner appeared as PW-1 in support of her claim, whereas the respondents examined Engineer Joginder Kumar as RW-1. After appreciating the entire evidence on record, the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.

4. Scope for interference with the awards passed by learned Labour Court was summed up in K.V.S. Ram Vs. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation2 as under: -

2 (2015) 12 SCC 39

“14. Once the Labour Court has exercised the discretion judicially, the High Court can interfere with the award, only if it is s.atisfied that the award of the Labour Court is vitiated by anPy fundamental flaws. We do not find that the award passed by the Labour Court suffers from any such flaws. While interfering with the award of the Labour Cou