Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

State feels aggrieved against the order passed

by the learned Labour Court -cum- Industrial Tribunal,

Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. on 17.10.2025 in an

application 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 till

realization of the amount.

2. Heard learned Additional Advocate General and

considered 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 Industrial

Tribunal-cum- Labour Court:-

“Whether termination of the services of Shri

Jeewan Singh S/o Shri Duni Chand by the Executive

Engineer, I & P.H Division, Dalhousie, District

Chamba, 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 compensation

the aggrieved workman is entitled to?”

Learned Labour Court adjudicated the reference

and passed an award in favour of the respondent-workman

on 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 the

regularization of the services of his junior(s).”

In terms of the award, retrenchment of 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 of 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. Respondent-workman was held entitled to

regularization from the date, his juniors, if any had been

regularized.

3(ii). The award was assailed by the petitioner-State

in Civil Writ Petition No.4194/2014. The writ petition was

dismissed 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 notional basis and w.e.f.

23.02.2019 on actual basis. His pay fixation was also carried

out.

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 in his favour on 20.05.2013.

However, the then Executive Engineer, I &P.H Division,

Dalhousie and other officials of the department had verbally

informed him of the department’s inability