IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos. 2106 of 2010 with CWP Nos.2107, 2108, 2109, 2110, 2111, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2118, 2119, 2120, 2121, 2122, 2123, 2124, 2125, 2126, 2127, 2128, 2129 of 2010. Date of Decision: 26th May, 2010. _______________________________________________________ 1. CWP No.2106 of 2010. Dulo Ram ….Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. and another ….Respondents. 2. CWP No.2107 of 2010. Dev Raj ….Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. and another ….Respondents. 3. CWP No.2108 of 2010. Puran Chand ….Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. and another ….Respondents. 4. CWP No.2109 of 2010. Dhian Chand ….Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. and another ….Respondents. 5. CWP No.2110 of 2010. Nikku Deen ….Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. and another ….Respondents. 6. CWP No.2111 of 2010. Karam Chand ….Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. and another ….Respondents. 7. CWP No.2112 of 2010. Karam Chand ….Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. and another ….Respondents. - 2 - 8. CWP No.2113 of 2010. Sher Singh ….Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. and another ….Respondents. 9. CWP No.2114 of 2010. Ramesh Chand ….Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. and another ….Respondents. 10. CWP No.2115 of 2010. Naresh Kumar ….Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. and another ….Respondents. 11. CWP No.2116 of 2010. Vachiter Singh ….Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. and another ….Respondents. 12. CWP No.2117 of 2010. Rai Singh ….Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. and another ….Respondents. 13. CWP No.2118 of 2010. Som RaJ ….Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. and another ….Respondents. 14. CWP No.2119 of 2010. Girdhari Lal ….Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. and another ….Respondents. 15. CWP No.2120 of 2010. Gagan Singh ….Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. and another ….Respondents. 16. CWP No.2121 of 2010. - 3 - Tilak Raj ….Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. and another ….Respondents. 17. CWP No.2122 of 2010. Ram Singh ….Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. and another ….Respondents. 18. CWP No.2123 of 2010. Purshotam Chand ….Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. and another ….Respondents. 19. CWP No.2124 of 2010. Shukar Deen ….Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. and another ….Respondents. 20. CWP No.2125 of 2010. Ram La l@ Tilak ….Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. and another ….Respondents. 21. CWP No.2126 of 2010. Joginder Singh ….Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. and another ….Respondents. 22. CWP No.2127 of 2010. Joginder Singh ….Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. and another ….Respondents. 23. CWP No.2128 of 2010. Mahashu Ram ….Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. and another ….Respondents. 24. CWP No.2129 of 2010. Ashok Kumar ….Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. and another ….Respondents. Coram - 4 - Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. For the Petitioners : Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral). The petitioners aggrieved, since they are not able to reap the fruits of Annexure P1- award of the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala. The award was passed on 22nd December, 2007. The operative portion of the award reads as follows:- “The respondent is directed to reengage the claimant in the same capacity in which he was rendering work for then prior to his disengagement so also, at the same place or in its vicinity. Besides, the break in service shall not affect the seniority of the claimant. However, in light of the fact that no evidence has been adduced on record to demonstrate that the claimant was or was not gainfully employed during the period of his disengagement and when the petition is belated, hence, relief of back wages is denied. Reference answered accordingly.” 2. The award is not under challenge by the State. According to the State, there was no work available to be given to the petitioners and hence the delay in complying with the award by reinstating the petitioners. This is seriously disputed by the petitioners. Be that as it may. We are informed that the petitioners are being reengaged on daily wage basis with effect from 25th May, 2010. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners apprehend that they would not get the seniority. - 5 - We are afraid that there is no basis for such apprehension. From the award, it is seen that only back wages have been denied to the petitioners and that they have actually been given the seniority. For all practical and legal purposes, it would mean that there is continuity in service. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of making it clear that the petitioners shall be entitled to the continuity in their service for all purposes, the actual back wages from the date of actual disengagement till the date of actual reengagement. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the judgment as above, to have a logical and effective conclusion of the judgment, the petitioners are also entitled for confirmation of work charge status. That is not a matter arising in these writ petitions. However, taking note of the fact that the petitioners are daily rated workmen, they may file appropriate representations before Engineer-in-Chief, H.P. PWD, on their claim regarding the confirmation of work charge status, in the light of the award and also of this judgment. The representations shall be considered by the said authority within a period of three months from the receipt of the representations, in accordance with law and without discriminating the petitioners. 5. All these writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), C.J. May 26th, 2010. (Justice Surinder Singh), J. (rc)