JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The Labour Commissioner forwarded, vis-a-vis, the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), the hereinafter extracted, reference, for an adjudication being rendered thereon:- “Whether the industrial dispute raised by the wroker Shri Mohinder Singh son of Shri Dharam Singh, r/o Village Badog, P.O. Dudar, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P., before the Executive Engineer, H.P.S.E.B. Electrical Division Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., vide demand notice dated 7.09.2009, regarding his alleged, illegal termination of service w.e.f. 25.10.2001, suffers from delay and latches? If not, whether termination of services of Shri Mohinder Singh son of Shri Dharam Singh, r/o Village Badog, P.O. Dudar, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P., by the Executive Engineer, H.P.S.E.B. Electrical Division, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. w.e.f. 25.10.2011 without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above aggrieved workman is entitled to from the above employer?” 2. Upon the afore extracted reference, the learned Tribunal, rendered an affirmative adjudication, vis-a-vis, the workman, and, against his employer. The employer is aggrieved therefrom, hence, has instituted the instant civil writ petition before this Court. 3. In the petition, the workman had espoused, qua infraction being visited, vis-a-vis, the provisions of Section 25G, of, the Industrial Disputes Act, provisions whereof, stand extracted hereinafter, (a) wherein a statutory prohibition, is, embodied, against, retention of workmen, by the employer, even when prior thereto, the services of senior therewith apposite workman, are, retrenched, also wherein the principle of last come, first go, is contemplated, (ii) infringment whereof, is canvassed, to, comprise in 2 workmen, junior to the respondent herein, being retained by the employer, even when prior thereto the services of the respondent herein, were retrenched. The provisions, of, Section 25G, of, the Industrial Disputes Act, read as under:- “25G. Procedure for retrenchment.-Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman.” 4. The espousal reared, by the workman/respondent herein, in his claim petition, is, meted corroboration, by the testification hence occurring, in the cross-examination of RW-1, (i) wherein, he makes a candid communication, of, one Uma Devi, Jagdish and Kashmir, all juniors, to the respondent herein, being retained, even when prior thereto, the services of the respondent herein were disengaged. Since, hence visible infraction, of, the principle of last come, first go, embodied in Section 25G, of the Industrial Disputes Act, is thereupon, hence forth coming, (ii) also when RW-1, in his testification, embodied, in his cross-examination, makes, echoings, of sufficient funds, being available, with, the employer, for maintaining the works, and, also for engaging workmen, (iii) besides, for, liquidating their wages, thereupon, it was untenable, for the employer, to, disengage the respondent herein. 5. Be that as it may, the petitioner, has, also ventilated grounds, in, the instant writ petition, (i) that since the workman, had abandoned his work, hence, ipso facto, his being not inferable to be retrenched, by the department nor hence there arising, any, occasion for any breach being made, vis-a-vis, the principle of last come, first go, comprised in Section 25G, of, the Industrial Disputes Act, nor hence, the retention of juniors, vis-a-vis, the respondent herein, significantly subsequent to his abandoning, the works, purveying any leverage to the workman, to on anvil thereof, rather contend, qua his being entitled, to the relief, of reinstatement in service. However, the aforesaid espousal, though, is embodied, in, the testification occurring, in the examination-in-chief, of, RW-1, (ii) yet the effect thereof, is eroded, by the factum of the petitioner while making a testification, his making a candid voicing therein, of his being, on his visiting the apposite establishment, of the petitioner, his being apprised, by the J.E., concerned, of his services being dispensed with or his being retrenched. The aforesaid testification, occurring, in the examination-in-chief of PW- 1, was not concerted, to be belied, by the respondent, by subjecting him to cross-examination, omission whereof, begets an inference, of the department, rather conceding qua truth thereof, (iii) besides obviously subsequent thereto testification, rendered by RW-1, qua, hence thereupon, the aforesaid inferential effect, being eroded, arising from, the factum, of, the workman purportedly abandoning his job, is hence unworthy of credence, rather, is, construable to be a sheer invention, (iv) more so, with the workman hereat, being engaged as a Beldar, on a daily rated, besides, thereupon, given the minimal wages meted to him, whereon he was dependent, for, his sustaining his family, also renders capsized the aforesaid contention of the employer (v) besides when no evidence surges forth, of, his after, his purportedly abandoning his job, his being engaged, in sum other avocation, (vi)whereas, evidence in the aforesaid respect, if adduced, may have constrained a conclusion, of, his abandoning the apt job. Contrarily, with the aforesaid evidence being amiss hereat, rather hence reiteratedly fosters, an inference of the department concerned, contriving and inventing, the factum of his abandoning, his job, merely, for camouflaging, its untenable act, of, its evidently infracting the principle, of last come and first go, evidently embodied in Section 25G, of, the Industrial Disputes Act. The effect of the aforesaid discussion, is, that the impugned order, directing the re-engagement, of, the workman, being both apt as well as tenable. 6. The learned counsel appearing, for the petitioner, has contended with vigour, that, the pronouncement, recorded by the learned Tribunal, upon, issue No.1, appertaining to the claim petition, suffering from, the vice(s) of delay and laches, warranting interference therewith, (i) and, the reliance placed by the learned tribunal, for hence, rendering dis-affirmative findings thereupon, upon the verdicts alluded, in, the impugned verdict, being rather misplaced. However, the aforesaid submission is blunted, by, the factum of a revelation, occurring, in Annexure P-4, qua the Labour Commissioner hence declining, to refer, the dispute raised by the workman, to the Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal. However, the workman had challenged the order, made, by the Labour Commissioner, and, as comprised in Annexure P-4, by his instituting a civil writ petition before this Court. However, the workman had challenged the order, made, by the Labour Commissioner, and, as comprised in Annexure P-4, by his instituting a civil writ petition before this Court. The apposite civil writ petition, bearing CWP No. 7429 of 2011, was disposed off, by this Court on 4.5.2015, and, the operative part thereof, contains, the hereinafter extracted directions, being meted by this Court, upon, the Labour Commissioner concerned:- “5. Moreover, the issue of delay can always be considered by the Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal at the time of answering the reference by moulding relief. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-4 dated 24.3.2011 is quashed and set aside. The Labour Commissioner is directed to make a reference to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal within a period of four weeks from today and Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal shall decide the same within a period of six months after the receipt of reference.” The aforesaid, directions, rendered by this Court, in CWP No. 7429 of 2011, acquire an aura, of, conclusivity, and, and estop, the writ petitioner, to contend, that, the apt dis-affirmative findings recorded, upon, apposite therewith issue, by the Industrial Tribunal concerned, rather suffering from any legal infirmity, (i) especially when this Court, had, also made directions, upon, the Industrial Tribunal, to, consider the issue qua delay and laches, by moulding relief, (ii) obviously hence impliedly, it had, rendered a pronouncement, upon, the Labour Court, qua upon its receiving the apposite reference, to rather over look, the factum, of the demand raised by the workman, being purportedly afflicted, by the factum of delay and laches, by its hence moulding relief. The aforesaid apt directions, meted, by this court, vis-a-vis, the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, vis-a-vis, the issue, appertaining to delay and laches, wherewith, it stands seized at the appropriate stage, carries, the effects, and, implications of the tribunal concerned, being empowered to mould the relief, vis-a-vis, the workman, upon, its pronouncing affirmative findings qua him, upon, adduction, of, firm proof, evidently surfacing qua infraction, of, the apposite provisions of Section 25G, rather than, it, merely, on evidence, surging forth, in display of delay and laches, it out rightly rejecting, the workman's claim, for reinstatement, in service. (iii) Emphatically with moulding of relief, emanating, from, the tribunal concerned, given its, declining relief of back wages, to, the workman. 7. (iii) Emphatically with moulding of relief, emanating, from, the tribunal concerned, given its, declining relief of back wages, to, the workman. 7. Even otherwise, the apt onus, upon, the aforestated issue, though, was cast upon the petitioner/workman, yet, with his retrenchment, being gripped, with gross statutory violations, (i) and, with the contention of the employer, qua the workman, abandoning his services, being, falsified, (ii) also hence renders the casting of the aforesaid, onus, upon the workman, being construabl to be grossly inappropriate, given his employer, rather raising, the contention, of the demand notice, being grossly time barred, also, (iii) hence the onus, for adducing apt evidence, in respect thereto, was enjoined to be cast, upon the employer, (iv) consequently, for the apposite onus qua the aforesaid issue, being inappropriately fastened, upon the workman, thereupon, it appears, that, he has not made, any endeavour to adduce evidence, in consonance therewith, hence, any non adducing, of, any evidence by the workman, for discharging the apt onus qua the aforesaid issue, does not work against him, (v) rather with the employer being aware, of its, raising the apposite contention, it was obliged, to adduce the apt best evidence in respect thereof, dehors, the inapposite, casting of the apt onus qua the aforesaid issue, upon, the respondent herein, (vi) whereas, its omitting, to adduce the apposite evidence in respect of the respondent, being hence literate, thereupon, despite his within time making legal consultations, for his canvassing, his appropriate remedy, his yet omitting to within time make the relevant endeavours, (vii) whereupon, alone, dehors, the verdict supra, pronounced by this Court , findings adversarial, to, the workman, were pronounceable thereon, (vii) whereas, the aforesaid evidence being amiss rather when the employer, rears, a false plea, of, the workman abandoning his job, thereupon, the strength, if any, of the apposite contention, is wholly emasculated. 8. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant petition and it is dismissed accordingly. Consequently, the order impugned before this Court, is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.