IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos. 3683 of 2010 alongwith CWP No.3684, 3685, 3687, 3688, 3689, 3690, 3691, 3692, 3693, 3694, 3695, 3696, 3749, 3750, 3752, 3753, 3754, 3771, 3772 and 3980 of 2010. Date of decision: 28.7.2010 1. CWP No.3683 of 2010 Executive Engineer, Dharampur ….. Petitioner. Vs. Krishan Chand …. Respondent. 2. CWP No.3684 of 2010 Executive Engineer, Dharampur ….. Petitioner. Vs. Chaman Lal …. Respondent. 3. CWP No.3685 of 2010 Executive Engineer, Dharampur ….. Petitioner. Vs. Vidya Devi …. Respondent. 4. CWP No.3687of 2010 Executive Engineer, Dharampur …….Petitioner Vs. Ram Gopal …. Respondent. 5. CWP No.3688 of 2010 Executive Engineer, Dharampur ….. Petitioner. Vs. Meera Devi …. Respondent. 6. CWP No.3689 of 2010 Executive Engineer, Dharampur ….. Petitioner. Vs. Jaswant Singh …. Respondent. 7. CWP No.3690 of 2010 Executive Engineer, Dharampur ….. Petitioner. Vs. Kunta Devi …. Respondent. 8. CWP No.3691 of 2010 Executive Engineer, Dharampur ….. Petitioner. Vs. Raj Kumar …. Respondent. 9. CWP No.3692 of 2010 Executive Engineer, Dharampur ….. Petitioner. Vs. 2 Nirmala Devi …. Respondent. 10. CWP No.3693 of 2010 Executive Engineer, Dharampur ….. Petitioner. Vs. Pritam Singh …. Respondent. 11. CWP No.3694 of 2010 Executive Engineer, Dharampur ….. Petitioner. Vs. Ramesh Kumar …. Respondent. 12. CWP No.3695 of 2010 Executive Engineer, Dharampur ….. Petitioner. Vs. Sheela Devi …. Respondent. 13. CWP No.3696 of 2010 Executive Engineer, Dharampur ….. Petitioner. Vs. Bimla Devi . Respondent. 14. CWP No.3749 of 2010 Executive Engineer, Dharampur ….. Petitioner. Vs. Ramesh Kumar …. Respondent. 15. CWP No.3750 of 2010 Executive Engineer, Dharampur ….. Petitioner. Vs. Dinesh Kumar . Respondent. 16. CWP No.3752 of 2010 Executive Engineer, Dharampur ….. Petitioner. Vs. Yadav Singh …. Respondent. 17. CWP No.3753 of 2010 Executive Engineer, Dharampur ….. Petitioner. Vs. Dumanu Ram …. Respondent. 18. CWP No.3754 of 2010 Executive Engineer, Dharampur ….. Petitioner. Vs. Bimla Devi …. Respondent. 19. CWP No.3771 of 2010 Executive Engineer, Dharampur ….. Petitioner. Vs. Raj Kumar …. Respondent. 20. CWP No.3772 of 2010 Executive Engineer, Dharampur ….. Petitioner. 3 Vs. Maghu Ram …. Respondent. 21. CWP No.3980 of 2010 Executive Engineer, Dharampur ….. Petitioner. Vs. Sanjay Kumar …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Suresh Kumar Sharma, Advocate. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) In these cases, the State has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala. The Tribunal has directed reinstatement with back wages. In a bunch of cases, this Court has considered the dispute in detail and has passed the following orders in CWP No.1387 of 2010 which is extracted as follows:- “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 4 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 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 5 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 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.” 2. The learned counsel for the parties have submitted that these writ petitions can be disposed of in terms of judgment extracted above. Ordered accordingly and all the above writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the judgment extracted above. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice July 28, 2010 (Justice Kuldip Singh), (sks/grs) Judge.