The Executive Engineer HPPWD B and R Division Joginder Nagar District Mandi HP vs Narvada Devi

Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 33-C(2) and 29 - Computation of money due under an award - Grant of "consequential benefits" upon retrospective regularization - Whether such benefits include actual monetary benefits when back wages for a different period were denied - Denial of back wages relating specifically to a period of fictional breaks does not preclude a workman from claiming actual monetary benefits resulting from retrospective regularization for a subsequent period - Consequential benefits encompass all quantifiable monetary benefits, including salary and emoluments, unless specifically excluded by the Court. (Para 4(i))

(B) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33-C(2) - Scope of Jurisdiction - Proceedings are analogous to execution proceedings - Labour Court acts as an executing court competent to interpret an award to ascertain its precise meaning and compute the amount due - While it cannot go behind the award or create a new award, it can conduct an incidental inquiry into the existence of a pre-existing right flowing from the award. (Para 5)

(C) Regularization of Service - Continuity of service - Once a workman is reinstated with continuity of service, they are deemed to have served uninterruptedly - Any delay in regularization is attributable to the employer - Denial of consequential financial benefits arising from retrospective regularization would create a conflict with the order granting continuity of service. (Para 4(ii))

Facts of the case:
Daily wage workers were held to be in continuous service by a Labour Court, which ordered that fictional breaks in their service be ignored for the purpose of seniority and continuity. The award granted consequential benefits but denied back wages for the period of the fictional breaks. Subsequently, the State regularized the workers' services retrospectively but restricted the monetary benefits to a notional basis until the actual date of the regularization orders. The workers then applied under Section 33-C(2) of the Act seeking actual difference in wages from the date their juniors were regularized.

Findings of Court:
The denial of back wages in the original award was limited to the specific period of fictional breaks. The grant of "consequential benefits" necessarily includes actual monetary benefits arising from retrospective regularization. Since the workers were deemed to be in continuous service, they were entitled to actual financial benefits from the date of notional regularization, as the delay in formalization was not attributable to them.

Issues: Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the Act to award actual monetary benefits arising from retrospective regularization when the original award had denied back wages for a specific period of fictional breaks.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that "consequential benefits" include actual emoluments and salary unless explicitly excluded. The denial of back wages for a specific period of fictional breaks does not bar the claim for actual monetary benefits for the period of retrospective regularization. Where continuity of service is granted, the workman is entitled to actual financial benefits from the date of notional regularization to avoid conflict with the continuity order.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Challenge to Labour Court order under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act granting actual monetary benefits from retrospective regularization date. (Para 1 , 2 )

2. Petitioner contended Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to grant actual benefits after denying back wages; workman argued consequential benefits include monetary benefits. (Para 3 , 4 )

3. Writ petitions dismissed; Labour Court order granting actual monetary benefits from retrospective regularization upheld. (Para 5 )

4. Does denial of back wages in an award bar grant of actual monetary benefits from retrospective regularization under Section 33-C(2)?

No, because denial of back wages relates only to the period of fictional breaks; consequential benefits include monetary benefits unless specifically excluded. (Para 5 )

5. Are consequential benefits inclusive of monetary benefits flowing from retrospective regularization?

Yes, the court held that consequential benefits include monetary benefits unless the court specifically excludes them. (Para 5 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

2026:HHC:20415

CWP Nos. 1782, 1785, 1786, 1787 & 1788 of 2026

Decided on: 29.05.2026

1. CWP No.1782/2026

The Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D ( B&R)

Division, Joginder Nagar

…..Petitioner

Versus

Narvada Devi

.....Respondent

2. CWP No.1785/2026

The Executive Engoineer, H.P.P.W.D ( B&R)

Division, Joginder Nagar

…..Petitioner

Versus

Chrundu Ram (Charundu Ram)

.....Respondent

3. CWP No.1786/2026

The Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D, Nirman Bhawan, Shimla and another

…..Petitioners

Versus

Ruma Devi

.....Respondent

4. CWP No.1787/2026

The Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D ( B&R)

Division, Joginder Nagar

…..Petitioner

Versus

Satya Devi

.....Respondent

5. CWP No.1788/2026

The Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D ( B&R) .

Division, Joginder Nagar

…..Petitioner

Versus

Kaul Singh

.....Respondent

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Whether approved for reporting?

Yes

For the petitioner(s): Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General,

Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General.

For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate in all petitions except CWP No.1786/2026

Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate, in CWP No.1786/2026.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

1. All these writ petitions involve almost common questions of facts and law, hence, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, have been taken together for adjudication. For convenience, reference hereinafter has been made to facts from CWP No.1782/2026 (The Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. (B &R), Division Joginder Nagar versus Narvada Devi).

2. State feels aggrieved against an order passed by learned Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal, Kangra on 27.02.2025 allowing an application moved by the respondent under Section 33-C(2) and 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the Act) read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code. In terms of the impugned order, respondent was held entitled to all monetary benefits on actual basis w.e.f. 04.01.2012 to 21.08.2015 alongwith 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the application.

2(i). Respondent’s case was that she had been engaged by the petitioner-State on daily wages on muster roll in the year 2002 but she had been given fictional breaks in service from time to time till 31.08.2007. It was only after an office letter was issued by the petitioner- Principal Secretary, Public Works Department on 14.09.2007 directing the department not to given fictional breaks to the workmen that the department stopped giving fictional breaks to the respondent. After taking into consideration respondent’s continuous service w.e.f. 14.09.2007, State regularized her services on 18.08.2015. In view of industrial dispute raised by respondent-workman, appropriate Government sent following reference for adjudication to learned Labour Court:-

“Whether time to time termination of the services of Smt. Narvada Devi, w/o Shri Chand Ram, R/o Village Laknehher, P.O. Chauntra, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. during November, 2002 to 31.08.2007 by the Executive Engineer, B & R Division H.P.P.W.D., Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947, is legal and justified? If no, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employer?”

The reference was decided under an award passed by the learned Labour Court on 24.06.2017 as under:-

“As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, petitioner is held to be in continuous, uninterrupted service with the respondent from the date of her initial engagement and that the breaks given by the respondent being fictional in nature shall have no effect on the seniority and continuity of service of the petitioner and her seniority shall be reckoned from her i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3241

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
The Executive Engineer HPPWD B and R Division Joginder Nagar District Mandi HP – Appellant
Versus
Narvada Devi – Respondent
CWP/1782/2026

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Does denial of back wages in an award bar grant of actual monetary benefits from retrospective regularization under Section 33-C(2)?

5. Are consequential benefits inclusive of monetary benefits flowing from retrospective regularization?

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3241

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLAHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUAThe Executive Engineer HPPWD B and R Division Joginder Nagar District Mandi HP – AppellantVersusNarvada Devi – RespondentCWP/1782/2026

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Does denial of back wages in an award bar grant of actual monetary benefits from retrospective regularization under Section 33-C(2)?

5. Are consequential benefits inclusive of monetary benefits flowing from retrospective regularization?

Cases Referred (9)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
The Executive Engineer HPPWD B and R Division Joginder Nagar District Mandi HP – Appellant
Versus
Narvada Devi – Respondent
CWP/1782/2026