Authority: High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla

Order Date: 06 November 2026 (pronounced 06.11.2026)

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) and the Management Board (collectively “the Board”).
  • Respondents: Forty‑four individual workmen (e.g., Narotam Ram, Mangat Ram, Upender, Dharam Singh, etc.) named in CWP Nos. 4849, 4851, 4853, 5160, 5162, 5164, 5172, 5174, 6365, 6367, 6385, 6396, 6397, 6398, 6399, 6400, 6401, 6402, 7403‑7424, 7943‑7950, 16900 of 2025.
  • The petitions challenged three awards dated 15 July 2024, 18 July 2024 and 19 July 2024 issued by the Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal‑cum‑Labour Court, Chandigarh.
  • Awards under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the “Act”) provided:
  • Rs 50,000 plus 9 % per annum interest to workmen with ≥5 years continuous service.
  • Rs 25,000 plus 9 % per annum interest to workmen with >1 year but <5 years service.
  • No compensation for workmen with <1 year service.
  • The Board argued that:
  • The workmen were employees of the earlier “Beas Construction Board”, not BBMB, and therefore BBMB bore no liability.
  • The reference was time‑barred (workmen filed reference on 07 July 2025 for retrenchment that occurred on 29 Nov 1978).
  • The Board had complied with recruitment rules and was not obligated to re‑employ the workmen.
  • Respondents contended that:
  • The Apex Court in Jaswant Singh v. Union of India (1979) made the Act the proper remedy for work‑charged employees.
  • The Board failed to comply with Rules 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and Section 25H of the Act, which require seniority‑based re‑employment and notice.
  • Numerous precedents (e.g., Ajaib Singh, Assistant Engineer v. Mohan Lal, Raghubir Singh v. General Manager, Yog Raj v. HPSEB) establish that no limitation period exists for filing a reference and that courts may mould relief.
  • The judgment recounted the legislative history of the Beas Project, the Punjab Re‑organisation Act, 1966, and the succession of Boards (Beas Construction Board → Bhakra Management Board → Bhakra Beas Management Board).
  • The Court reproduced relevant portions of the 1974 Award and the 1977 Settlement, which mandated preferential re‑employment for work‑charged employees with ten‑year continuous service and outlined ex‑gratia gratuity provisions.
  • The Court examined affidavits of the Sub‑Divisional Officer, noting admissions that the Board was not under any statutory duty to re‑employ the workmen, but also highlighting that such statements conflicted with the mandatory provisions of Rules 77/78 and Section 25H.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court held that the workmen’s claims were not time‑barred; the Apex Court’s jurisprudence on the absence of a limitation period was binding.
  • It affirmed that the Labour Court correctly classified the workmen as employees of BBMB under the Act and that the Board violated mandatory re‑employment provisions.
  • The Awards dated 15 July 2024, 18 July 2024 and 19 July 2024 were upheld in full; the compensation amounts (Rs 50,000 or Rs 25,000 plus 9 % interest) stand.
  • The Board was directed to deposit the awarded sums with accrued interest and to disburse them to the workmen upon furnishing their bank account numbers to the Registrar (Judicial) of the Court.
  • All 44 writ petitions were dismissed; any pending miscellaneous applications were also ordered disposed of.

Topics: Labor Law, Industrial Disputes