JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla in Reference No. 92 of 2005 dated 16.06.2009. The learned Tribunal vide award dated 16.06.2009 has granted the following relief: “As a sequel to my above discussion and findings on issue No. 1 to 3, the claim of the deceased petitioner Shri Lachi Ram succeeds and is hereby allowed and as such Shri Ram Lal, son of original petitioner Shri Lachi Ram is ordered to be given service forthwith against the job of his father from the date of passing of this award i.e. 16.06.2009 without seniority, continuity and back wages being fresh appointee. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette. File, after completion, be consigned to records.” 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are that one Shri Lachhi Ram raised an industrial dispute on the basis of which, the following reference was made by the appropriate Government: “Whether the termination of services of Shri Lachhi Ram, S/o Shri Attru Ram workman by the Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Arki, District Solan, H.P. w.e.f. December, 2004 without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is proper and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits and amount of compensation the above aggrieved workman is entitled to?” 3. Pursuant to said reference, a claim petition was filed by Shri Lachhi Ram before learned Court below, in which it was stated that he was initially appointed as Daily Rated Beldar by the respondents (present petitioner) in January, 1994 and after his appointment, he worked as such till December, 1994 when his services were terminated without assigning any reason. His case further was that during his service period, he had continuously worked and completed more than 240 days in a calendar year and after December, 1994, he was not allowed to work despite requests. Therefore, as per the claimant, the termination of his service was unlawful and illegal and was in violation of the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, as within the same Sub-division/Division, many new persons were engaged and junior persons were retained and it was only the claimant who was thrown out of job. Therefore, as per the claimant, the termination of his service was unlawful and illegal and was in violation of the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, as within the same Sub-division/Division, many new persons were engaged and junior persons were retained and it was only the claimant who was thrown out of job. Thus, according to the claimant, his termination was in violation of the principle of ‘last come first go.’ On these grounds, he prayed that the respondents be directed to reinstate him with retrospective effect with all consequential benefits, back wages, continuity of service, seniority, regularization, promotion etc. 4. In its reply to the said claim petition, the employer-department stated that the claimant was engaged in November, 1993 and in the calendar year 1993, in the months of November and December, he worked only for 55 days. It was emphatically denied that he worked in the year 1994 till December as alleged. As per the department, in the year 1994, he worked only for 198 days and that too up to August. Thereafter, the petitioner left the work at his own. Thus, according to the department, as the claimant had left the work of his own will, there was no question of violation of the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act by the department. Though the factum of persons junior to the applicant being retained by the department and fresh persons being engaged by the department was not specifically denied in the reply, however, the stand of the department was that the claimant never approached the respondents after August, 1994 and his whereabouts were not known to the respondents. On these basis, the department denied the claim of the workman. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Court below framed the following issues: 1. Whether the service of the petitioner has been illegally terminated without complying the provisions of the I.D. Act? If so, its effect? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmation, to what relief the petitioner is entitled to? OPP 3. Whether the petitioner has abandoned the job at his own as alleged? OPR 4. Relief. 6. On the basis of the material produced on record by the parties, learned Court below returned the following findings to the said issues: Issue No. 1 : Yes. OPP 3. Whether the petitioner has abandoned the job at his own as alleged? OPR 4. Relief. 6. On the basis of the material produced on record by the parties, learned Court below returned the following findings to the said issues: Issue No. 1 : Yes. Issue No. 2 : LR of the original petitioner Shri Lachhi Ram, his son Ram Lal is ordered to be given service forthwith against the reinstatement of his father without back wages and seniority. Issue No. 3 : No. Relief : Reference answered in affirmative per operative part of award. 7. On the basis of findings so returned, learned Labour Court passed the award in favour of the legal representatives of the claimant who died during the pendency of the Reference Petition in the terms as has already been mentioned above. 8. Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the award passed by the learned Court below is liable to be quashed and set aside on the ground that the same is perverse for the reason that the relief which had been granted by the learned Labour Court was beyond its jurisdiction. According to Mr. Chauhan, even if it was assumed that the services of the claimant were terminated by the department in violation of the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, even then at the most learned Labour Court could have had granted the relief in favour of the workman from the date when he raised the industrial dispute till the date of his superannuation and there was no authority vested with the learned Labour Court to have had directed that Shri Ram Lal, son of claimant Shri Lachhi Ram be given the service forthwith against the job of his father from the date of passing of the award. 9. Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand argued that there was no infirmity with the award passed by the learned Labour Court and it cannot be said that the relief which had been granted by the learned Labour Court was beyond its authority or jurisdiction. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case. 11. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case. 11. In my considered view, there is considerable force in the arguments of learned Additional Advocate General that learned Labour Court could not have granted relief in the mode and manner in which it had been granted by the impugned award. The death certificate of late Shri Lachhi Ram reveals that he died on 12.04.2008. The petitioner-State has placed on record alongwith the death certificate of deceased Lachhi Ram the relevant extract of the Pariwar register of deceased Lachhi Ram issued under signatures of Secretary, Gram Panchayat Mangoo, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, as per which, the year of birth of Shri Lachhi Ram is mentioned as 1944. This fact has not been disputed or denied by the learned counsel for the respondent. Petitioner-State has also produced on record as Annexure P-4, a copy of the demand notice issued by late Shri Lachhi Ram, which is dated 01.08.2002. Taking the date of birth of deceased Lachhi Ram as the year 1944, he would have had superannuated from service on attaining the age of 60 years (which is the superannuation age for Class-IV employees) in the year, 2004. 12. It is also an undisputed fact that though according to late Shri Lachhi Ram, his services were arbitrarily terminated in the year, 1994, but the industrial dispute was raised by him as late as in the year, 2002 by way of issuance of demand notice dated 01.08.2002. 13. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raghubir Singh Vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar (2014) 10 SCC 301 that even if there are delay and latches on the part of workman in raising the industrial dispute and getting the same referenced for adjudication, the Labour Court is statutorily duty bound to answer the points of dispute referred to it by adjudicating the same on merits of the case and it ought to have moulded the relief appropriately in favour of the workman. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted herein-below: “45. It is an undisputed fact that the dispute was raised by the workman after he was acquitted in the criminal case which was initiated at the instance of the respondent. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted herein-below: “45. It is an undisputed fact that the dispute was raised by the workman after he was acquitted in the criminal case which was initiated at the instance of the respondent. Raising the industrial dispute belatedly and getting the same referred from the State Government to the Labour Court is for justifiable reason and the same is supported by law laid down by this Court in Calcutta Dock Labour Board (supra). Even assuming for the sake of the argument that there was a certain delay and latches on the part of the workman in raising the industrial dispute and getting the same referenced for adjudication, the Labour Court is statutorily duty bound to answer the points of dispute referred to it by adjudicating the same on merits of the case and it ought to have moulded the relief appropriately in favour of the workman. That has not been done at all by the Labour Court. Both the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court in its Civil Writ Petition and the Letters Patent Appeal have failed to consider this important aspect of the matter. Therefore, we are of the view that the order of termination passed by the respondent, the award passed by the Labour Court and the judgment & order of the High Court are liable to be set aside. When we arrive at the aforesaid conclusion, the next aspect is whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement, back wages and consequential benefits. We are of the view that the workman must be reinstated. However, due to delay in raising the industrial dispute, and getting it referred to the Labour Court from the State Government, the workman will be entitled in law for back wages and other consequential benefits from the date of raising the industrial dispute i.e. from 02.03.2005 till reinstatement with all consequential benefits.” 14. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jasmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2015) 4 SCC 458 has held as under:- “21. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jasmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2015) 4 SCC 458 has held as under:- “21. The said relief in favour of the appellant-workman, particularly the full back wages is supported by the legal principles laid down by this Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya wherein the Division Bench of this Court to which one of us was a member, after considering three-Judge Bench decision, has held that if the order of termination is void ab initio, the workman is entitled to full back wages. 22. The relevant para of the decision is extracted hereunder:- (Deepali Gundu case, SCC p.344, para 22) "22. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer employee relationship, the latter's source of income gets dried up. Not only the concerned employee, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi judicial body or Court that the action taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. Denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the concerned employee and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments." 15. In my considered view, learned Tribunal was bound to answer the points of disputes referred to it by adjudicating the same on merit and appropriate relief could have been granted keeping in view the reference made and reliefs claimed by the workman in the claim petition. Reference before the learned Labour Court was not to this effect as to whether son of deceased workman Lachhi Ram was entitled for appointment after the death of Shri Lachhi Ram on the basis of alleged illegal termination of Shri Lachhi Ram by the respondent-department. This very important aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned Tribunal below. 16. Therefore, the learned Labour Court has erred in directing the department to offer employment to son of the deceased/claimant from the date of passing of the award. At the best the relief which could have been granted by the learned Labour Court in favour of the deceased claimant was re-engagement and back wages from the date when he raised the industrial dispute till the date of his superannuation. No more relief could have been granted by the learned Labour Court in view of the fact that the claimant had raised the industrial dispute at a very belated stage. Not only this, the learned Court below could not have directed the present petitioner to offer appointment to Shri Ram Lal, son of original petitioner Shri Lachhi Ram, as has been directed by it. This direction has been passed in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon the learned Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act while deciding a matter pertaining to violation of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. 17. This direction has been passed in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon the learned Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act while deciding a matter pertaining to violation of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. 17. However, keeping in view the fact that the matter pertains to a workman who died during the pendency of the adjudication of the reference petition and there is a definite finding arrived at by the learned Labour Court to the effect that the termination of the deceased claimant was in violation of the statutory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, in my considered view, the interest of justice will be served by directing the petitioner-department to pay to the respondents (legal representatives of deceased claimant) the back wages of deceased claimant w.e.f. the date he raised the industrial dispute, i.e. 01.08.2002 till the date of his superannuation in the year, 2004. 18. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms and the award passed by the learned Labour Court to the effect that son of deceased workman be given appointment from the date of death of deceased workman is quashed and set aside. The findings arrived at by the learned Labour Court to the effect that the termination of deceased workman was in violation of the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are not disturbed and the petitioner-department is directed to pay to the respondents the back wages of deceased workman as were accruable to him w.e.f. 01.08.2002 till the date of his superannuation in the year 2004. The amount due to the respondent be released within a period of three months from today, failing which, the petitioner-department shall be liable to pay interest on the same at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of this judgment till the date of actual payment. No order as to costs.