IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.2183/2007 Reserved on.18.3.2008 Decided on.10.4.2008 Kushal Singh. …Petitioner. Versus H.P.S.E.B. and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the petitioner : Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Rajiv Sharma, J. A challenge has been laid by way of this petition to award dated 27.9.2007 made by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in reference No. 487/2002. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the State Government has made a reference to the Labour Court to the following effect. “Whether the termination of services of Shri Kushal Singh son of Shri Saran Dass, workman by the Executive Engineer, (Electrical Division) H.P.S.E.B., Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. w.e.f. 25.9.1986 without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and Clause 14 (2) of the Certified Standing Orders of the Board, whereas junior to him are retained by the Board is proper and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits Shri Kaushal Singh is entitled to?” 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 The Labour Court answered the reference in affirmative and held that the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the workman for convenience sake) was entitled for his reinstatement on the same terms and conditions in which he was working prior to his dis-engagement with all consequential benefits except back wages. It was further directed by the Labour Court that the workman if not re-engaged within a period of 90 days, he shall be entitled to full wages. The employer i.e. H.P.S.E.B. assailed the award dated 26.10.2005 by way of CWP No. 164 of 2006. The writ petition was decided by this Court on 21.6.2007. The operative portion of the judgment reads thus: “Having perused the award, I find favour with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the issue of delay and laches for the purposes of determination of back wages, seniority and continuation in service has not been considered at all. Therefore, without disturbing the finding of the Tribunal, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal on this limited issue.” It is evident from the reading of the judgment dated 21.6.2007 that only a limited remand was ordered by this Court and the other findings of the Labour Court were upheld. The Labour Court was bound to decide the matter for a limited purpose as directed by this Court. However, the Labour Court instead of confining the adjudication to the issues remanded to it decided the reference afresh. The Labour Court dismissed the claim petition and the reference was thus answered in the negative. Mr. Dushyan Dadwal, Advocate had strenuously argued that the Labour Court had gone beyond the judgment of this Court dated 21st June, 2007 whereby only limited remand was ordered. Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate had supported the award dated 27.9.2007. 3 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. In conspectus the case of the petitioner is that the Labour Court vide award dated 26.10.2005 directed the reinstatement of the workman on the same terms and conditions in which he was working prior to his dis- engagement with all consequential service benefits except back wages. However, he was held entitled to back wages if he was not engaged by employer within 90 days. This Court had returned a specific finding that the employer had violated Clause 14 (2) of the Standing Orders framed by it under the Industrial Employment Standing orders Act, 1946. This Court had agreed with the submission of the learned counsel for the employer that the issue of delay and laches for the purpose of determination of back wages, seniority and continuation in service has not been considered at all. The matter was remanded back to the Labour Court on those limited issues. It was in fact a limited remand. What emerges from the pleadings is that this Court has upheld the award dated 26.10.2005 as far as the retrenchment of the workman was concerned but the limited remand was ordered to enable the Labour Court to determine only the issue of delay and laches for the purpose of determination of back wages, seniority and continuation in service. The Labour Court surprisingly instead of conforming to the judgment of this Court had again decided the reference afresh. The Labour Court has taken note of the issues which were framed by the Labour Court in earlier award dated 26.10.2005 but had recorded different findings. The Labour Court has also disturbed the findings which had already been upheld by this Court i.e. violation of Clause 14 (2) of the Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment Standing orders Act, 1946 by the 4 employer. The Labour Court has not punctually obeyed the judgment of this Court. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The award dated 27.9.2007 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Labour Court to decide the issues strictly as per the judgment of this Court dated 21.6.2007 whereby only the limited remand was ordered. The Labour Court will decide the issue within a period of 3 months from today. There shall be no order as to costs. ( Rajiv Sharma), Judge April 10, 2008. *Awasthi*