IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4327 of 2009 Date of decision: 11.10.2012 The Executive Engineer, Dharampur Division, HP PWD, Dharampur, Tehsil Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. … Petitioner Versus Smt. Promila Devi W/O Shri Rajmal, Village Saklana, P.O. Saklana, Tehsil Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi, H.P. … Respondent Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Rahul Mahajan and Ms. Meena Thakur, Advocates. V.K. Ahuja , J. (Oral): The respondent was working as daily wage Beldar with the petitioner under Dharampur Division. The respondent was engaged since 6.6.1999 and continued to work till 7.7.2005. His services were dispensed with and the dispute was referred by the Labour Commissioner to the Presiding Judge, Labour Court, who entered into the Reference and passed the award on 31.3.2009. The learned Labour Court had held that the labourer/respondent was entitled to reinstatement with 50% back wages and continuity of service from the date of his retrenchment. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2. During the course of arguments, reliance was placed upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Dharampur Division Vs. Dhani Ram, Latest HLJ 2010 (HP) Vol. 2, 972. In that case, the petitioners who were similarly placed like the present petitioner, were also working in Dharampur Division and in lieu of 50% back wages, the Division Bench had ordered that a sum of ` 50,000/- shall be payable to the claimant in lump sum. 3. The above decision was also followed by this Court in CWP No. 1364 of 2010-B titled The Executive Engineer, Dharampur Division Vs. Surender Kumar, decided on 25.7.2012 and accordingly, the similar order is passed in this case that in lieu of 50% back wages, ` 50,000/- shall be payable to the claimant/ respondent in lump sum. 4. In view of the above, the petition stands allowed accordingly. All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. ( V.K. Ahuja ), October 11, 2012 Judge (BSS)