IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.1809 of 2007. Date of Decision: 25.11.2010. State of H.P. and others …Petitioners Versus. Ramsa Ram and another …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Petitioner(s): Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. For the Respondent(s): None Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) 1. The main issued raised in this petition is that the order of the Presiding Judge, H.P. Labour Court, Shimla ordering the re- engagement of the petitioner cannot be complied with since the petitioner would have attained the age of superannuation in the year 1999 i.e. latest by 31.12.1999. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the workman) submitted a demand notice that he was engaged as beldar in Forest Division Chopal in the year 1978 and continued to work as such. He contended that his services had been terminated in the month of August, 2 1996 without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and his termination be held to be illegal. 3. The learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the services of the workman had been terminated by not following the procedure prescribed by law and answered the reference in favour of the petitioner. The Petitioners were directed to re- engage the petitioner with continuity in service and seniority and back wages to the extent of 25% from the date of reference i.e. 6.4.2002. It was made clear that the re-engagement of the workman was subject to the condition that he had not completed the age of superannuation. 4. By means of this petition it is pointed out that the workman was born in the year 1939 and therefore had already attained the age of superannuation when this order was passed and even before the reference was made. Since the date of birth is not clearly mentioned in the birth certificate Annexure P-4 but it is apparent that the workman would have attained the age of superannuation in the year 1999, it is deemed that he should retire on 31.12.1999. The Tribunal granted arrears only from the date of reference petition which order has not been challenged by the workman. Since the workman would have retired prior to the said date he in fact is not entitled to any benefits under the award. 3 With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. November 25, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) PV Judge.