Whether approved for reporting? 1¹Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

State feels aggrieved against the order passed by thhe learned Labour Court -cum- Industrial Tribunal, gDharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. on 17.10.2025 in aniapplication moved by the respondent-workman under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, this writ petition.

In terms of the impugned order, respondent-workman has been held entitled to an amount of ₹16,32,795/- towards his full wages from 20.05.2013 (date of award) to 22.02.2019 (date of re-engagement) alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of the order tillrealization of the amount.

2. Heard learned Additional Advocate General andconsidered the case file.

3. The Case

3(i). On an industrial dispute raised by the respondent- workman, the appropriate government sent following reference for adjudication to the learned IndustrialTribunal-cum- Labour Court:-

“Whether termination of the services of Shri Jeewano Singh S/o Shri Duni Chand by the Executive Engineer, I & P.H Division, Dalhousie, District CChamba, H.P. w.e.f. 16.11.2000 and retaining the junior workmen, as alleged by the worker, is proper and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensationthe aggrieved workman is entitled to?”

Learned Labour Court adjudicated the referenceand passed an award in favour of the respondent-workmanon 20.05.2013 as under:-

“The retrenchment of the petitioner is set-aside and quashed. The respondent is directed to re-engage the petitioner forthwith. He shall be entitled to the seniority and continuity in service from the date of his illegal termination i.e. 16.11.2000 except back wages. The respondent is also directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services as per the policies framed by the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh from time to time. It is made clear that if the services of any person junior to the petitioner have already been regularized, he (petitioner) shall be entitled to the regularization from the date/month of theregularization of the services of his junior(s).”

In terms of the award, retrenchment oPf the respondent was set-aside. Petitioner was directed to re- engage the respondent-workman forthwith. Respondent- workman was further held entitled to seniority and continuity in service from the date oof his illegal termination i.e. 16.11.2000 except back wages. Petitioner-State was also directed to consider the case of the respondent- workman for regularization of his services as per applicable policies. Responodent-workman was held entitled to regularizatioCn from the date, his juniors, if any had beenregularized.

3(ii). The award was assailed by the petitioner-State in Civil Writ Petition No.4194/2014. The writ petition wasidismissed on 06.04.2015. Petitioner-State assailed the judgment dated 06.04.2015 in Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 42/2016. The LPA was also dismissed on 13.04.2016. The Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner-State was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 24.09.2018. The award was still not implemented. Respondent- workman filed an application under Section 11(9) of the Act for enforcement of the award. The executing court issued warrants of attachment of moveable property of the department. The petitioner-State thereafter issued order for implementing the award and respondent- workman was re-engaged on 22.02.2019 but with immediate effect. Respondent- workman accordingly joined on 23.02.2019. His services were regularized w.e.f. 01.01.2003 to 22.02.2019 on notionafl basis and w.e.f. 23.02.2019 on actual basis. His pay fixation was also carriedout.

3(iii). Respondent-workman moved an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 asserting that he had appeared before the petitioner-State on 07.08.2013 requesting for his re-engagement in service in terms of award passed i