The Executive Engineer Iph Div Dalhousie Vs Kamal Nath

State feels aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Labour Court -cum- Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. on 16.09.2025 in an application moved by the respondent-workman under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, this writ petition.

¶17

In terms of the impugned order, respondentworkman has been held entitled to an amount of ₹17,61,560/- towards his full wages from 19.09.2012 (date

¶18

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶19

2

¶20

( 2026:HHC:12800 ) 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.

¶21

2. Heard learned Additional Advocate General and considered the case file.

¶22

3. The Case

¶23

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:-

¶24

“Whether termination of the services of Shri Kamal Nath S/o Shri Neeru, by the Executive Engineer, I & P.H Division, Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P. w.e.f. 26.11.2000 while his juniors have been retained, is proper and justified? If no, what relief, service benefits including seniority and back wages the above workers is entitled to?”

¶25

Learned Labour Court adjudicated the reference

¶26

and passed an award in favour of the respondent-workman on 19.09.2012 as under:-

¶27

“…..The retrenchment of the petitioner is setaside 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. 26.11.2K except back wages….”

¶28

In terms of the award, retrenchment of the respondent was set-aside. Petitioner was directed to re-

¶29

3

¶30

( 2026:HHC:12800 )

¶31

engage the respondent-workman forthwith. Respondentworkman was further held entitled to seniority and continuity in service from the date of his illegal termination i.e. 26.11.2000 except back wages.

¶32

3(ii). The award was assailed by the petitioner-State in Civil Writ Petition No.4010/2013. The writ petition was dismissed on 06.01.2015. Petitioner-State assailed the judgment dated 06.01.2015 in Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 49/2016. The LPA was also dismissed on 25.04.2016. The Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner-State was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 31.08.2018. 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 respondentworkman 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.

¶33

4

¶34

( 2026:HHC:12800 )

¶35

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 view of award passed in his favour on 19.09.2012. 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 to do so in terms of award being under challenge. The award having attained finality right till the Hon’ble Apex Court, the respondent- workman claimed re-engagement from the date of award i.e. 19.09.2012 whereas the petitioner-State had re-engaged him w.e.f. 22.02.2019. The respondentworkman also claimed actual wages w.e.f. 19.09.2012 (date of award) to 22.02.2019 (date of re-engagement) in terms of the award. The payable wages were also computed by the workman.

¶36

3(iv). The stand of petitioner-State was that respondent- workman had been re-engaged on daily wages w.e.f. 22.02.2019. He had never approached the department for re-engagement subsequent to the award. The department had justly implemented the award passed in respondent’s favour. Work Charge Status was granted to

¶37

5

¶38

( 2026:HHC:12800 ) the respondent- workman on completion of 08 years of service on actual basis from 23.02.2019 when he was reengaged on daily wages as Beldar. The respondentworkman had accepted the benefit without any reservation. His pay had accordingly been fixed on notional basis w.e.f. 01.01.2003 to 22.02.2019 on notional basis and on actual basis w.e.f. 23.02.2019. Since the Labour Court had not granted any back wages to the respondent-workman, therefore, retrospective benefits could not have been given to him on actual basis.

¶39

3(v). Parties led evidence in support of their respective assertions.

¶40

After considering the entire case, learned Labour Court allowed the application to the extent of holding the respondent-workman entitled to an amount of ₹17,61,560/- on account of full wages from 19.09.2012 to 22.02.2019 alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of order i.e. 16.09.2025.

¶41

4. Consideration.

¶42

On considering the entire case file, I am of the considered view that impugned order does not call for any interference:-

¶43

6

¶44

( 2026:HHC:12800 ) 4(i). It will be in place to first refer to

¶45

D.N.Krishnappa versus The Deputy General

¶46

Manager.² In this case, Hon’ble Apex Court set aside impugned judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka by which, the High Court had allowed the writ petition preferred by employer against the order passed by Labour Court in an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 awarding wages for period from 18.07.2007 i.e. date of award of reinstatement to 23.09.2013 i.e. actual date of reinstatement. Hon’ble Apex Court held that if employer had obtained stay against the award of reinstatement and ultimately order of reinstatement attained finality then the workman should not be made to suffer and denied back wages. Merely because the reinstatement order was under challenge and there was stay of order of reinstatement during the pendency of the proceeding before the High Court, it cannot be a ground to deny the wages to the workman when ultimately the order of reinstatement came to be confirmed and attained the finality. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-

¶47

“7. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the facts narrated hereinabove, it emergers that the order of reinstatement vide award dated 18.07.2007 has been confirmed up to the Division Bench of the

¶48

2Civil Appeal No.9008/2022, decided on 12.12.2022.

¶49

7

¶50

( 2026:HHC:12800 ) High Court and even by this Court. What was modified by the High Court was the back wages from the date of termination till the date of award passed by the CGIT. It was the bank – employer who obtained the stay order against the order of reinstatement which ultimately came to be terminated on 12.07.2013 when the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeals. As observed hereinabove, it was the employer –bank who obtained the stay against reinstatement and ultimately order of reinstatement attained the finality. Why should the employee be made suffer, when the bank obtained the stay of reinstatement and when the order of reinstatement subsequently came to be confirmed and attained the finality?

¶51

7.1 So far as the submissions on behalf of the bank that the interim order merged with final order dated 12.07.2013 and therefore, the appellant is not entitled to claim the back wages for the period between 18.07.2007 and 12.07.2013 is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that the interim order is always subject to the final order that may be passed finally while terminating the proceedings. Interim orders are always subject to the final decision. Therefore, merely because there was an interim order/stay of the order of reinstatement during the pendency of the proceedings, the employee – appellant cannot be denied the back wages/wages when ultimately the order of reinstatement came be confirmed by the Court.

¶52

7.2 Similarly, the submission on behalf of the bank applying the principle of merger has also no substance. In the present case as such the order of award of reinstatement has been confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Therefore, the order of reinstatement will rely back to the original order passed by the Labour Court. Merely because the reinstatement order was under challenge and there was a stay of the order of reinstatement during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court, it cannot be a ground to deny the wages to

¶53

8

¶54

( 2026:HHC:12800 ) the employee when ultimately the order of reinstatement came to be confirmed and attained the finality.

¶55

7.3 Now so far as the submissions on behalf of the bank that as during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court and for the period during the stay of order of reinstatement, the appellant was paid the last drawn wages under Section 17B of the ID Act and therefore he is not entitled to any wages for the period during the stay is concerned, there is no substance. At the most, whatever is held to be entitled to pay the appellant – employee as wages from the order of award of reinstatement till actual reinstatement, whatever is paid under Section 17B of the ID Act, the same is to be deducted and/or adjusted.

¶56

7.4 Now reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Bombay Chemical Industries vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner & Anr³ , considered by the High Court is concerned, as such the High Court has mis-applied the said decision to the facts of the case on hand. In the present case, the claim of the appellant was adjudicated upon. The appellant approached the Industrial Tribunal by way of an application under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act for implementation of award dated 18.07.2007. Therefore, so far as the order of reinstatement and the wages claimed on the order of reinstatement is concerned, the same were already adjudicated upon. In the case of Bombay Chemical Industries³ , it is observed and held that un-adjudicated claim cannot be the subject matter of proceedings under Section 33-C(2) and in the proceedings under Section 33C(2), the Tribunal can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based. Under the circumstances, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand.”

¶57

32022(5) SCC 629.

¶58

9

¶59

( 2026:HHC:12800 ) 4(ii). In the instant case, the award was passed by the learned Labour Court in favour of respondent-workman on 19.09.2012 with clear direction to the petitioner- State to reengage the workman forthwith. Respondent was also held entitled to seniority and continuity in service from the date of his illegal termination i.e. 16.11.2000. Backwages from the date of respondent’s illegal termination till the date of award were denied as the respondent had failed to discharge the initial onus of his being not in gainful employment during the period. However, this would not mean that the respondent- workman was not to be given wages w.e.f. from the date of the award i.e. 19.09.2012 more so when the award has attained finality as Civil Writ Petition No. 4010/2013 preferred by the State against the award dated 19.09.2012 was dismissed on 06.01.2015. Further, challenge to the award in LPA No.49/2016 was also turned down on 25.04.2016. Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No.30580/2018 preferred by the petitioner- State was also dismissed on 31.08.2018. Merely because the petitionerState did not take any action pursuant to the award and implemented the same only on 22.02.2019 after the learned executing Court issued warrants of attachment of petitioner’s moveable property, would not mean that the

¶60

10

¶61

( 2026:HHC:12800 ) respondent-workman would not be entitled to actual wages w.e.f. 19.09.2012 i.e. the date of award and in terms of directions issued in the award. It is not the case of the petitioner- State that operation of award dated 19.09.2012 had been stayed in the different challenges laid to it.

¶62

The respondent-workman had justified his claim of actual wages w.e.f. 19.09.2012 (the date of award) to 22.02.2019 (date when he was actually re-engaged by the petitioner-State). In the given case, principle of no work no pay will not be attracted. The respondent- workman in his application duly supported with affidavit, moved under Section 33-C(2) of the Act had categorically stated that “…...but respondent intentionally not implemented the award and kept the petitioner under forced un-employment for long period illegally w.e.f. 19.09.2012 to 23.02.2019 which caused financial and mental harassment to the applicant as well as his family members”. It is also not the case of the petitioner-State that any notice was issued by them subsequent to the award to the respondent-workman for his re-engagement or directing him to join the service. It has been the case of the respondent-workman throughout that he had been appearing before the petitioner-State requesting for his re-engagement but the award had not

¶63

11

¶64

( 2026:HHC:12800 ) been implemented by the petitioner-State on account of pendency of Civil Writ Petition, thereafter, Letters Patent Appeal and subsequent filing of Special Leave Petition even though admittedly the award had never been stayed. The computation of the wages as carried out by the respondentworkman has not been disputed.

¶65

In the given facts and circumstances, no interference with the impugned order is called for. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶66

Jyotsna Rewal Dua April 22, 2026 Judge yogesh

The Executive Engineer Iph Div Dalhousie v. Kamal Nath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer Iph Div Dalhousie v. Kamal Nath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Kalta Spirits L-13 Vs the State of Hp and Others

Geeta Devi Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Others

Sohan Lal Vs the State of Hp and Others

Inderjeet Verma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Kuldeep Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

The Executive Engineer Iph Div Dalhousie Vs Chaman Singh