Balbir Singh Vs Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Hpseb Ltd.

2025:HHC:22388-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.9562 of 2023 Decided on: 07.07.2025

Balbir Singh … Petitioner
Versus Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, H.P.S.E.B. Limited, Joginder Nagar … Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶5

____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

¶6

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed Award, dated 02.04.2022, passed by the Court of learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., in Reference No.195 of 2016, titled as Shri Balbir Singh Versus The Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, H.P.S.E.B. Limited, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., in terms whereof, the Reference made by the Appropriate Government was answered by learned Labour Court as under:-

¶7

“15. In view of my discussion on the above issues, it is held that though there had been violation of Section 25-H of the Act by the respondent in this case but the petitioner had raised demand alter gap of 13 years and his claim has been thus vitiated by delay and latches, hence reinstatement and other consequential benefits cannot be granted in his favour but he is held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.70,000/-(Rupees Seventy thousand only), which would be paid within

¶8

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

¶9

2

¶10

2025:HHC:22388-DB

¶11

four months by the respondent and from the date of receipt of Award failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay the interest 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of award till the date of its realization. Parties are left to bear their costs.”

¶12

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner raised an industrial dispute and thereupon the following Reference was made by the appropriate Government to learned Labour Court:-

¶13

“Whether alleged termination of services of Shri Balbir Singh S/o Shri Madan Lal, R/o Village Bag Gandehar, PO Bag, Tehsil Lad Bharol, District Mandi, H. P w.ef 31 01 2000 by the Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, H.PSE.B. Limited, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., who had worked as beldar on daily wages only for 58 days during years, 1994-2000 and has raised his industrial dispute after more than 13 years vide demand notice dated 18.03.2013, without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, keeping in view of werking neriod of 58 days during years, 1994-2000 and delay of more than 13 years in raising the industrial dispute, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above ex-worker is entitled to from employer/management?"

¶14

As per the claim put-forth by the petitioner, he was engaged by the respondent on daily wage basis w.e.f. 25.12.1994 and he worked upto 31.01.2000, with interruptions when his services were unlawfully terminated without following the provisions

¶15

3

¶16

2025:HHC:22388-DB

¶17

of the Industrial Disputes Act. As per him, the workmen junior to him were retained whereas his services were arbitrarily terminated.

¶18

The respondent refuted the claim of the petitioner and took the plea that he had worked only for 58 days as form the year 1994 to 2000 and had left the work without informing his superiors and was a habitual absentee.

¶19

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Labour Court framed the following issues:-

¶20

“ 1. Whether termination of the services of petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. 31.01.2000 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged? OPP

¶21

2. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, to what service benefits the petitioner is entitled to? OPP

¶22

3. Relief. ”

¶23

On the strength of evidence led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, the issues so framed were

¶24

answered by learned Labour Court as under:-

¶25

“ Issue No.1: Decided accordingly. Issue No.2: Decided accordingly. Relief: Petition is partly allowed awarding lump sum compensation of Rs.70,000/- as per operative part of the Award. ”

¶26

Learned Labour Court held that there was a violation of

¶27

the provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, but as the petitioner had raised the demand after 13 years and that there was an issue of delays and laches it held claimant entitled for

¶28

4

¶29

2025:HHC:22388-DB

¶30

compensation to the tune of Rs.70,000/-.

¶31

This Award has been assailed by the petitioner.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that Award passed by learned Labour Court was bad. He submitted that when learned Labour Court held and rightly so that there was a violation of the provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, learned Labour Court ought to have had ordered reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits. He accordingly, prayed that this writ petition be allowed and the Award be set aside to the extent that compensation was Awarded to the petitioner and reinstatement of the petitioner be ordered.

¶33

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the compensation that was awarded by learned Labour Court in favour of the petitioner was otherwise on the higher side as the petitioner was paid compensation of Rs.70,000/- despite the fact that he had worked only for 58 days and further, as there was a delay and that too, huge delay in the raising of the industrial dispute by the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for any relief, as prayed for, in this writ petition.

¶34

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Award passed by learned Labour Court as well as other documents appended with the pleadings, this Court does not finds any infirmity in the Award under challenge.

¶35

As the findings returned by learned Labour Court that there was a violation of the provisions of Section 25-H of the

¶36

5

¶37

2025:HHC:22388-DB

¶38

Industrial Disputes Act have not been assailed by the respondent, therefore, this Court is not making any observation thereupon. However, fact of the matter remains that the industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner after more than thirteen years as has been held by learned Labour Court and this could not be countered by learned counsel for the petitioner. Further, it could also not be demonstrated that the findings returned by learned Labour Court that the petitioner had worked only for 58 days were incorrect findings and not borne out from the record.

¶39

In the said backdrop of the facts, the grant of compensation of Rs.70,000/- by learned Labour Court cannot be said to be on the lower side and the petitioner should be satisfied with the same s the same is more than reasonable.

¶40

Accordingly, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶41

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶42

July 07, 2025 (Rishi)

Balbir Singh v. Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Hpseb Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbir Singh v. Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Hpseb Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narender Sharma and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Kritika Vs Hpu and Others

Nipun Yadav and Another Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Another

Prem Singh Vs Varun Chari

Surender Singh Vs State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and Anr. Vs Ram Nath