Retrenched 1978, reference 2005: Himachal HC upholds awards of up to Rs 50,000 against BBMB

A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi dismissed 44 writ petitions by the Bhakra Beas Management Board against labour court awards of compensation to work-charged workmen who were not offered re-employment after retrenchment.

One workman was discharged from the Beas project on 29 November 1978. The Central Government made the reference to the labour court on 7 July 2005, more than 26 years later. On 6 November 2026 the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the delay did not defeat his claim.

Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia delivered the judgment for a Division Bench that also included Justice Bipin Chander Negi. It disposed of 44 writ petitions by the Bhakra Beas Management Board, with the Board’s petition against Narotam Ram as the lead case, and upheld every award.

What the Labour Court awarded

The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, passed the awards on 15, 18 and 19 July 2024. The facts were identical, and the court took them from Reference No. 116/2005, Narotam Ram v. BBMB.

Workmen with five years of service or more were to get Rs 50,000. Those with more than one year but less than five got Rs 25,000. Both groups were to receive 9 per cent interest from the date of the application until payment. Workmen with under a year of service got nothing.

The tribunal found that the Board had not complied with Rules 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. That breached Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which gives retrenched workmen preference when the employer hires.

A long road to the reference

Narotam Ram was enrolled on 31 October 1971 and discharged on 29 November 1978 for lack of work and reduction in strength. In 1979 the Supreme Court decided Jaswant Singh v. Union of India, which concerned the Board’s work-charged staff.

The workmen said the Board later filled posts with an age limit of 45 and added qualifications, and took fresh applications. A writ petition by 90 workmen in 1996 was withdrawn because of disputed facts.

A civil suit filed at Sundernagar on 21 January 1997 ended on 5 July 2022 with the plaints returned.

A demand notice followed on 21 November 2003 and the reference on 7 July 2005. The Board challenged the reference up to the Supreme Court, where its petitions were dismissed on 8 July 2014 with liberty to raise every contention before the labour court.

The Board’s case

Mr Aman Sood, Advocate, appeared for the Board in all the petitions. He argued that the workmen had waited too long: the reference came in 2005 for a discharge in 1978.

He also said the Board was wrongly saddled with liabilities of the Beas Construction Board, which was the actual employer. The workman’s enrolment was in 1971. The Board was constituted on 1 November 1966 as the Bhakra Management Board and renamed on 15 May 1976.

The discharge certificate, he said, was issued by a Sub-Divisional Officer at Sundernagar and did not relate to the Board. The workmen also had to prove a breach of Section 25H, he argued, and the tribunal had wrongly put the burden on the Board.

The workmen’s case

Ms Suchitra Thakur and Mr Krishan Chand Chauhan, Advocates, appeared for the workmen. They relied on Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society for the rule that no limitation applies to seeking a reference.

They also relied on Section 79(4) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, whose proviso keeps existing project staff employed under the new Board on the same terms. Cross-examination of the Board’s witness, they said, showed all later hiring followed the 1994 regulations, with no duty to call back retrenched men.

The workmen also asked for enhanced compensation, though no cross-petitions had been filed.

Three questions for the bench

The court framed three questions. The first was limitation. The second was whether the labour court wrongly held the Board liable as employer, with the Beas Construction Board absent. The third was whether Section 25H and the Rules were violated and proved.

It put the first this way:

“Whether the claim as such of the workmen was time-barred and should have been non-suited due to the delay in raising the Reference.” (para 16)

Why delay did not defeat the claim

The bench held that delay would not stand in the workmen’s way. Under Ajaib Singh, no limitation period is prescribed for seeking a reference, though a court may mould the relief.

In that case the Supreme Court cut back wages to 60 per cent because the demand was raised years after termination, and said the Act is beneficial legislation. The bench noted that the Supreme Court there rejected a Punjab and Haryana Full Bench view to the contrary.

It noted that Mohan Lal and Raghubir Singh took the same line. A single judge of the High Court had recently done likewise in Yog Raj v. Senior Executive Engineer, HPSEB, applying the Supreme Court’s December 2025 ruling in State of U.P. v. Krishna Murari Sharma.

A case that did not fit

The Board relied on Chief Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam v. Shyam Lal. The bench distinguished it. That workman had served about a year, and demanded a reference nine years after termination.

He had also produced no proof of 240 days’ work in a year. Here, the bench said, the period of employment ran from 31 October 1971 to 29 November 1978, and the discharge was for lack of work.

Moulding the relief

The bench traced the history from the 1978 discharge through the 1996 writ petition, the civil suit and the 2007 and 2014 rulings. The limitation issue could not stand in the way of relief, it said.

Reinstatement was no longer possible, so the labour court had moulded relief as compensation. The bench cited Incharge Officer v. Shankar Shetty and Gitam Singh, where daily wagers with short service got Rs 1 lakh and Rs 50,000 instead of reinstatement.

The employer: one Board by many names

On the second question, the court noted the workmen’s case under Sections 79 and 80 of the 1966 Act: that they became Central Government employees when the Board was renamed in 1976. The Board said the Beas Construction Board alone had employed and retrenched them.

The court set out the proviso to Section 79(4), which keeps every person engaged on the works in employment under the Board on the same terms. It held that renaming the Board changed nothing:

“would not take away the rights of the workmen” (para 36)

The 1974 award, which the Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh said governs work-charged staff, directed that those with ten years’ service be offered maintenance posts first. The settlement of 28 June 1977 promised help for retrenched men in finding jobs. The bench read these as showing a right to preferential employment under Section 25H.

The admission that sank the Board’s case

The workmen had pleaded in the Labour Court that the Board filled vacancies without telling them. They listed an age limit of 45, extra qualifications, promotions, daily wagers and open competition.

The Board’s Sub-Divisional Officer (Personnel) said in cross-examination that the Board had no obligation to re-employ the workman, who could apply when vacancies were advertised. The bench said this contradicted the Rules.

Rule 77 requires a seniority list on the notice board seven days before retrenchment, and Rule 78 requires vacancy notices displayed and sent by registered post to every eligible retrenched workman. That, it said, had not been done.

Burden, and the limits of a writ court

The bench held that there was no dispute that the mandatory provisions were not followed: no notice of reduction in work, no recall. The Board could not rely on changed terms, over-age status or new qualifications to deny re-employment.

On the writ jurisdiction, it cited Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and later rulings. A writ court under Articles 226 and 227 does not sit as an appellate court and interferes with an award only for patent illegality or perversity.

The labour court’s reasoning could not be faulted, the court held. The workmen’s plea for more money was refused because no cross-petition had been filed, and Vice-Chancellor, Lucknow University v. Akhilesh Kumar Khare, which involved casual workers, did not help them.

Order

The Division Bench found no patent illegality in the awards of 15, 18 and 19 July 2024. All 44 writ petitions stand dismissed, with pending applications.

When it issued notice, the High Court had stayed the awards on condition that the Board deposit the compensation with interest up to date. That money has been deposited. It is to be paid to the workmen once their counsel furnish bank account numbers to the Registrar (Judicial).