IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Writ Petition No. 353 of 2008. Reserved on: 22.9.2008. Decided on: 25.9.2008. __________________________________________________ Smt. Durgi Devi .… Petitioner Versus H.P.S.E.B. and others. .… Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. V.D. Khidta, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Beldar in the month of September 1996. Her services were dis-engaged as Beldar w.e.f. 26.5.1997. She served a demand notice on her employer and ultimately on the basis of the failure report, a reference was made on 17.5.2003 by the State Government to the following effect: “Whether the termination of the services of Smt. Durgi Devi w/o Shri Ram Lal w.e.f. 26.5.1997 without complying the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 by the Executive Engineer, HPSEB Electrical Division, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. whereas junior to her are still working, is 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 proper and justified? If not, what relief or seniority, service benefits and compensation Smt. Durgi Devi is entitled to?” In sequel to the reference made by the State Government, the petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the workman for convenience sake, filed statement of claim stating therein that her retrenchment was in violation of mandatory provisions of industrial law as well as standing orders framed by the respondent-Board under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders Act, 1946). The respondent, hereinafter referred to as the employer, filed reply to the claim petition. The learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court- cum-Industrial Tribunal, Shimla answered the reference in favour of the workman on 3.3.2007. She was directed to be re-engaged in service, however, without seniority and back wages. The employer filed CWP No. 763 of 2007 assailing the award dated 3.3.2007. The writ petition bearing No. 763 of 2007 was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 11.6.2007. The workman filed an independent writ petition bearing No. 907 of 2007 seeking back wages and seniority on the basis of the award dated 3.3.2007. The Court directed the petitioner to make a representation to the employer within a period of two weeks while disposing of the writ petition on 11.9.2007. The workman made a representation to the employer on 30.9.2007. The same was rejected on 12.11.2007. Mr. V.D. Khidta, Advocate has strenuously argued that once the learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the retrenchment of the petitioner was bad in law, his client was entitled to back wages and seniority. 3 Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate has argued that there was inordinate delay in raising the industrial dispute by the workman and she is neither entitled to back wages nor seniority. I have heard the parties and perused the record carefully. It is evident from the pleadings of the parties that the workman had been engaged on daily wages basis as Beldar with effect from 17.9.1996 to 28.2.1997 and thereafter from 26.3.1997 to 25.5.1997. She was retrenched on 26.5.1997. In the petition, the date when the demand notice was served upon the employer and the date of failure report are not mentioned. However, the Court can presume that the failure report was sent by the Conciliation Officer to the State Government only in the year 2003. The reference No. 165/2003 was instituted on 17.5.2003. It was adjudicated upon on 3.3.2007. There was an inordinate delay by the workman while raising the industrial dispute. The workman has not explained the delay satisfactorily between 26.5.1997 till the institution of the reference on 17.5.2003. The workman has been re-engaged by the employer pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court on 11.6.2007. The workman has only worked intermittently from 17.9.1996 to 28.2.1997 and thereafter, from 26.3.1997 to 25.5.1997. She has raised the industrial dispute belatedly. The learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case has rightly refused to grant back wages and seniority to the workman. The effect of granting seniority to the workman at the belated stage would unsettle the settled seniority. The Board has 4 given cogent reasons for not granting the seniority w.e.f. May 2003 after taking into consideration short stint she had been employed. Consequently, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. September 25, 2008. (cr)