IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 4319 of 2009 along with connected matters mentioned below. Decided on: 15th May, 2010. (For title, please see below). Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners : See below. For the Respondents : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) 1. CWP No.4319 of 2009. Executive Engineer. vs. Roshan Lal. For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. 2. CWP No.4179 of 2009. Executive Engineer. vs. Gandhi Ram. For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. 3. CWP No.4180 of 2009. Executive Engineer. vs. Rampa Devi. 2 For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Nemo. 4. CWP No.4181 of 2009. Executive Engineer. vs. Sarita Devi. For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. 5. CWP No.4182 of 2009. Executive Engineer. vs. Harnam Singh. For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. 6. CWP No.4184 of 2009. Executive Engineer. vs. Vinod Kumar. For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Nemo. 7. CWP No.4185 of 2009. Executive Engineer. vs. Rattan Chand. For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. 8. CWP No.4205 of 2009. Executive Engineer. vs. Sant Ram. For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Nemo. 9. CWP No.4206 of 2009. 3 Executive Engineer. vs. Moti Lal. For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. 10. CWP No.4208 of 2009. Executive Engineer. vs. Bansi Lal. For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. 11. CWP No.4209 of 2009. Executive Engineer. vs. Biri Dutt. For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. 12. CWP No.4246 of 2009. Executive Engineer. vs. Kashmir Singh. For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Nemo. 13. CWP No.4317 of 2009. Executive Engineer. vs. Shiv Devi. For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Nemo. 14. CWP No.4320 of 2009. Executive Engineer. vs. Salig Ram. For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Nemo. 4 15. CWP No.4321 of 2009. Executive Engineer. vs. Naveen Kumar. For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Nemo. 16. CWP No.4323 of 2009. Executive Engineer. vs. Ramesh Kumar. For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. 17. CWP No.4324 of 2009. Executive Engineer. vs. Hem Raj. For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Nemo. 18. CWP No.4325 of 2009. Executive Engineer. vs. Deep Kumar. For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Nemo. 19. CWP No.4326 of 2009. Executive Engineer. vs. Prem Chand. For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Nemo. 20. CWP No.4329 of 2009. Executive Engineer. vs. Suresh Kumar. 5 For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. 21. CWP No.4331 of 2009. Executive Engineer. vs. Vipin Kumar. For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Nemo. 22. CWP No.4332 of 2009. Executive Engineer. vs. Vinod Kumar. For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Nemo. 23. CWP No.4397 of 2009. Executive Engineer. vs. Gian Chand. For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. 24. CWP No.4438 of 2009. Executive Engineer. vs. Kamla Devi. For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Nemo. 25. CWP No.4440 of 2009. Executive Engineer. vs. Damodari Devi. For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Nemo. 26. CWP No.4441 of 2009. 6 Executive Engineer. vs. Junga Devi. For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Nemo. 27. CWP No.4454 of 2009. Executive Engineer. vs. Sakuntla Devi. For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. 28. CWP No.4455 of 2009. Executive Engineer. vs. Gian Chand. For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. 29. CWP No.4570 of 2009. Executive Engineer. vs. Laxmi Devi. For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Nemo. 30. CWP No.4571 of 2009. Executive Engineer. vs. Kashmir Singh. For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. These are the cases where the State has challenged the Award passed by the Labour Court, Dharamshala wherein the Labour Court directed the re-instatement of workmen with 50% 7 back wages. All the workmen had been engaged on daily waged basis. When a batch of cases came before us on13th May, 2010, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases as appearing on record and as brought to our notice at the time of hearing, we passed the following judgment: “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 as if the Division did not have any 8 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 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 9 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.” Learned counsel for the petitioners in these cases, however, submit that the workmen are entitled to have 50% and if not 100% of the back wages. Reference is also invited to a decision of this Court in The Telecom District Manager, Telecommunication vs. Shashi Kamal and another, LPA No.18 of 2007 decided on 26th February, 2010. On going through the decision, we find that it was a case where having regard to the facts and circumstances available on record, the Labour Court had itself awarded 100% back wages and this Court on the well settled principles, declined to interfere with the Award. That is not the situation here. These are the cases where the workmen have been granted four months pay at the time of the retrenchment and they have been now re- instated with continuity of service. There is also the bright prospects of regularization since it is submitted that the State does not intend to retrench them. Therefore, as far as the workmen under the Dharampur Division are concerned, in view of the assured engagement and regularization thereafter, they definitely stand on a different footing. It is also to be appreciated that more than one thousand workmen had to be retrenched for want of work and yet they have been re-instated with continuity of service and continued service. No doubt, that need not necessarily have a bearing on the determination of the question of back wages. Back 10 wages depend on evidence itself as to whether in the interregnum, the workmen had any other engagement or not. It is to be noted that the workmen were casual labourers and in their status, it cannot normally be presumed that they had been left without any job during the interregnum of around four years. Only on an overall assessment of the facts, law and equity in all the cases, this Court on the basis of the fair suggestion that a liquidated compensation would be ideal in the situation, we disposed of the cases with the compensation of Rs.50,000/- in full and final settlement of claim towards the back wages, in addition to four months pay already granted to them. Therefore, despite the persuasive arguments made by the learned counsel, we are unable to take a different view. Hence, these writ petitions are also disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 13.5.2010, as extracted above, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 15th May, 2010 ( Justice Deepak Gupta ), (tr) Judge.