Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

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 initial date of engagement. Accordingly, claim of petitioner is hereby allowed in part and reference is accordingly answered in favour of petitioner. The petitioner shall thus be deemed to be in continuous service of respondent with consequential benefits except back wages. She shall, however, be considered for regularization by respondent at the time when her juniors have been regularized as per policy governing daily wagers as framed by State Govt. and operative from time to time. The parties, however, shall bear their own costs.”

Learned Labour Court while allowing the claim petition held the respondent to be in continuous, uninterrupted service with the petitioner from the date of her initial engagement; Fictional breaks given in the service of respondent were to have no impact upon her seniority and continuity; Respondent‘s seniority was to be reckoned from the date of her initial engagement; Respondent was to be deemed to be in continuous service of the petitioner with consequential benefits except back wages; Respondent was also to be considered for regularization by the petitioner from the time her juniors had been regularized in accordance with policies framed by the State Government from time to time.

2(ii). Petitioner- State considered respondent’s claim under the aforesaid award and granted her regular scale retrospe