HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No. : 127 of 2008 Decided on: 25.5.2009. Durgi Devi ……… Appellant. Versus H.P. State Electricity Board and others ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the appellant: Mr.V.D. Khidta, Advocate. For respondents No.1 & 2: Mr.Baldev Singh, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral): This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed on 25.9.2008 in CWP No.353 of 2008, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been rejected. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was disengaged as Beldar by the respondent-Board on 26.5.1997. A reference was made by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 17.5.2003 i.e. after almost six years. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the services of the petitioner had not been terminated in accordance with law and he, therefore, directed that the present appellant be reinstated in service but qualified his order by directing that this would be without seniority and back wages. The petitioner filed a writ petition, which was registered as CWP No.907 of 2007, challenging the award of the learned Tribunal. This writ petition was dismissed ___________ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes on 11.9.2007 with the direction that the petitioner may make representation to the respondent-Board in respect of her claim for seniority. The respondent- Board rejected the claim of the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner filed second writ petition being CWP No.353 of 2008, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 25.9.2008. The learned Single Judge has come to a finding of fact that the petitioner had worked as workman only intermittently from 17.9.1996 to 28.2.1997 and thereafter from 26.3.1997 to 25.5.1997. This shows that the appellant had worked for little more than 5 months only. The industrial dispute was raised 6 years after her termination. Even though it may be correct that the respondent-Board had not specifically raised the plea of delay and latches, the fact remains that while granting relief, the Court can mould the relief keeping in view the facts of the case. It may also be true that the learned Tribunal has not spelt out the reasons why he was not giving back wages and seniority to the petitioner, but it is apparent that this was done because the claim was highly belated. The learned Single Judge, after considering the entire facts, has come to the conclusion that granting of seniority to the appellant at this belated stage would unsettle the settled seniority and affect the rights of other persons. We are in agreement with the findings of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is rejected accordingly. In view of the final disposal of the main appeal, all the pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Deepak Gupta), Judge . May 25, 2009. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.