IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 1387 of 2010 alongwith CWP Nos.1365, 1366, 1388, 1394, 1402, 1403, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407, 1408, 1409, 1410, 1411, 1412, 1413, 1414, 1416, 1417, 1418, 1419, 1420, 1421, 1713, 1428, 1367, 1368, 1370, 1371, 1372, 1373, 1374, 1375, 1376, 1377, 1378, 1379, 1380, 1381, 1382, 1383, 1384, 1385, 1386, 1389, 1390, 1391, 1392, 1393, 1395, 1396, 1397, 1398, 1399, 1400, 1401 and 1506 of 2010. Date of Decision: 13.5.2010. The Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Dharampur Division. ( in all cases) …Petitioner(s). Versus. 1. Nihal Chand in CWP No.1387 of 2010 2. Dhani Ram in CWP No.1365 of 2010 3. Anita Devi in CWP No.1366 of 2010 4. Kamal Chand in CWP No.1388 of 2010 5. Chaman Lal in CWP No.1394 of 2010 6. Kaushalya Devi in CWP No.1402 of 2010 7. Navneet Kumar in CWP No.1403 of 2010 8. Pratap Singh in CWP No.1404 of 2010 9. Jai Pal in CWP No.1405 of 2010 10. Khayali Ram in CWP No.1406 of 2010 11. Pawan Kumar in CWP No.1407 of 2010 12. Meera Devi in CWP No.1408 of 2010 13. Giano Devi in CWP No.1409 of 2010 14. Bohari Devi in CWP No.1410 of 2010 15. Santosh Kumar in CWP No.1411 of 2010 16. Murari Lal in CWP No.1412 of 2010 17. Ramesh Kumar in CWP No.1413 of 2010 18. Gian Chand in CWP No.1414 of 2010 19. Kanhi Devi in CWP No.1416 of 2010 20. Ramesh Kumar in CWP No.1417 of 2010 21. Chaman Lal in CWP No.1418 of 2010 22. Pawan Kumar in CWP No.1419 of 2010 23. Beena Devi in CWP No.1420 of 2010 24. Ravinder Kumar in CWP No.1421 of 2010 2 25. Surinder Kumar in CWP No.1713 of 2010 26. Krishan Chand in CWP No.1428 of 2010 27. Bimla Devi in CWP No.1367 of 2010 28. Tulsi Ram in CWP No.1368 of 2010 29. Godda Devi in CWP No.1370 of 2010 30. Anil Kumar in CWP No.1371 of 2010 31. Kunti Devi in CWP No.1372 of 2010 32. Mehar Chand in CWP No.1373 of 2010 33. Suresh Kumar in CWP No.1374 of 2010 34. Inder Pal in CWP No.1375 of 2010 35. Pawan Kumar in CWP No.1376 of 2010 36. Achar Singh in CWP No.1377 of 2010 37. Rakesh Kumar in CWP No.1378 of 2010 38. Gangi Devi in CWP No.1379 of 2010 39. Suresh Kumar in CWP No.1380 of 2010 40. Jiwan Lal in CWP No.1381 of 2010 41. Shesh Pal in CWP No.1382 of 2010 42. Satya Devi in CWP No.1383 of 2010 43. Khem Singh in CWP No.1384 of 2010 44. Lal Singh in CWP No.1385 of 2010 45. Maina Devi in CWP No.1386 of 2010 46. Reshmi Devi in CWP No.1389 of 2010 47. Mahanti Devi in CWP No.1390 of 2010 48. Sunil Kumar in CWP No.1391 of 2010 49. Prem Singh in CWP No.1392 of 2010 50. Ramesh Chand in CWP No.1393 of 2010 51. Yasodha Devi in CWP No.1395 of 2010 52. Jiwan Kumar in CWP No.1396 of 2010 53. Bhagmal in CWP No.1397 of 2010 54. Pawan Kumar in CWP No.1398 of 2010 55. Rajender Kumar in CWP No.1399 of 2010 56. Sati Devi in CWP No.1400 of 2010 57. Roshan Lal in CWP No.1401 of 2010 58. Hem Singh in CWP No.1506 of 2010 …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge . For the Petitioner(s): Mr.R.K. Sharma, Sr.Addl.A.G. For the Respondent(s): Mr.Suresh Kumar Sharma, Advocate alongwith Mr.Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. 3 Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The State has challenged the order passed by Labour Court Dharamshala. The question considered by the Labour Court was the alleged illegal retrenchment of the workmen attached to the PWD Division, Dharampur. The workmen had a case that the retrenchment was in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 particularly Sections 25-G & 25-H. On a detailed appreciation of the facts and the evidence available on record the Labour Court decided the reference and passed an award directing the reinstatement of the workmen with continuity in service and payment of 50% back-wages. It is seen that the grievance of the State is only with regard to the award of back-wages. Heard learned Senior Additional Advocate General appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents. Learned counsel for the workmen point out that it is a case of a sheer discrimination and illegal retrenchment since the only purpose of retrenchment was to retain the juniors to them who are the persons of their choice. There is also a contention that after retrenching the workmen in all these cases, there was large scale engagement of daily-waged workmen for the purpose of ongoing development works. On going through the record and having heard the learned Senior Additional Advocate General, we find that it is not a situation 4 as if the Division did not have any ongoing Projects, though there is a vehement contention that they did not require large number of workmen. Be that as it may. Having regard to the various contentions made on both sides, we find that the award of 50% back-wages apart from the continuity in service and without also taking note of the notice pay already granted to workmen, will not be justified in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that the workmen engaged in these cases were daily-waged casual labourers. However, the fact remains that the retrenchment was improperly executed if not illegally made. But that does not mean that the award of the back wages is automatic and to the extent of 50%. Having regard to the entire evidence available on record and having regard to the various contentions made by both the sides and having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it will only be just, fit, fair, proper and reasonable to have a liquidated amount fixed towards costs and compensation which will take care of also the plea regarding the back wages. It is fairly suggested by both the sides that in the case of those workmen who pursued their grievances under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court and where there is an award for 5 payment of 50% back-wages, an amount of Rs.50,000/- in that regard would be reasonable. Therefore, all these cases are disposed of making it clear that towards the full and final settlement of the claim of back-wages, each of the workmen in these cases would be paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- in addition to the notice they have already received. We also make it clear that this direction would also apply to those workmen in whose favour there are awards as above and which have not been challenged before this Court so that future litigation in that regard could be avoided. The amount shall be paid within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. The writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any. ( Justice Kurian Joseph ), Chief Justice May 13, 2010. ( Deepak Gupta ) PV Judge.