IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 11 of 2011 Date of Decision : August 29, 2011 H.P.S.E.B and another … Appellants. Versus Sattar Mohammad and another … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the appellants : Mr. Trilok Jamwal, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. A. K. Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) CMP(M) No. 29 of 2011 For the reasons which stand fully explained by the appellants, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application disposed of. LPA No. 11 of 2011 In terms of judgment dated 9.1.2009, passed in CWP No. 1041 of 2008, titled as Sattar Mohammad versus The H.P. State Electricity Board and others, learned Single Judge of this Court has set aside award dated 3.6.2006 passed by the Presiding Judge, H.P. Labour Court, Shimla under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and has further ordered the order of retrenchment of the 2 petitioner (employee) w.e.f. 21.12.1992 to be void ab initio. Petitioner is directed to be deemed to be in employment with 50% back wages. There is no dispute that the impugned judgment stands implemented prior to filing of the present appeal. The appeal was preferred much after the lapse of period of 22 months, which is not attributable at all to the petitioner. Petitioner has already suffered a lot on account of his disengagement. Money disbursed by the appellant has been utilized by him to meet up his unforeseen contingencies. 2. It is not in dispute that now petitioner stands re-engaged and is also satisfactorily discharging his duties. Hence we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment to this extent. 3. However, with regard to disbursement of 50% back wages, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, we are of the view that the same can be adjusted/set off against the leave accruing to the credit of the writ petitioner for encashment. This order is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case and shall not be treated as binding precedent in future. 4. Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. August 29, 2011 (PK)