IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1661 of 2009. Decided on: 18th June, 2010. Dilu Ram. ….. Petitioner. Versus Executive Engineer, HPPWD. …… Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. R.D. Kaundal, Advocate, vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Annexure PA, Award passed by the Labour Court- cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala on 21.5.2005 is under challenge. The issue referred for adjudication reads as follows: “Whether the action of termination of Sh. Delu Ram s/o Sh. Hemo village, Silot, P.O. Bhadela, Tehsil Salooni, Distt. Chamba, H.P. daily wages beldar by the Executive Engineer, HP PWD, Salooni Division, Distt. Chamba, H.P. by giving breaks for the period w.e.f. August, 1996 to June, 2000 without complying with the provisions under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief and service benefit the above worker is entitled for.” 2 2. The Labour Court found that the dis-engagement of the petitioner was in violation of Sections 25-F and G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There is no challenge on the finding by the respondent. However, while moulding the relief, the Labour Court directed the re-engagement of the petitioner as fresh appointment and with a further direction that there will be no back wages. When it is a fresh appointment, there is no question of back wages in any case. But the question is when there is a finding that the termination is in violation of the provisions of Section 25-G, is not the workman entitled for consideration of the two other consequential reliefs; (1) continuity of service and (2) back wages? 3. It is now settled law that back wages do not automatically follow even when there is an award for re- instatement. It would depend on the evidence available in each case. On going through the facts of the present case, we find that the issue regarding back wages was not established before the Labour Court and hence the Labour Court is certainly justified in denying the back wages. However, as far as the issue regarding continuity of service is concerned, when there is a categoric and unchallenged finding that the termination is in violation of Sections 25-F and G, the workman should be entitled to the consequential relief at least of continuity of service. The writ petition is hence partly allowed. The award will stand modified to the extent of the relief being granted to the petitioner that he 3 would be entitled to continuity of service w.e.f. the date of the termination. 4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 18th June, 2010 ( Justice Rajiv Sharma), (tr/karan) Judge. 4