1 2025:HHC:23188 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA LPA No. 319 of 2025 Date of decision: 16.07 .2025 ________________________________________________________ Hemender Singh …..Appellant Versus The Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala & another . …Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________ For the Appellant: Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice ( O ral) Challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the order dated 24.02.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 9795 of 2014, title Hemender Singh Vs. The Presiding Jude, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal & another, dismissing the writ petition and upholding the award dated 19.09.2013, passed by the Labour Court, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Reasoning given by the learned Single Judge was that the workman had not completed 240 days in any calendar year from the date of his appointment in the year 2000 and had worked only for 60, 55 and 30 days in the years 2003, 2005 and 2006, respectively and he had not agitated the fact that the intentional breaks had been given to him and the industrial dispute was raised by him after a period of 10 years, when he was given fictional breaks. It was further held that in the years 2002, 2004 and 2007, the workman had not worked even for a single day, and, therefore, the findings of the Labour Court as such were upheld by the learned Single Judge, by holding that there was no violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and, therefore, the award as such did not call for any interference. 3. Counsel for the appellant as such has now sought to place on record additional documents, apparently also sought to be placed before the learned Single Judge in support of the case of the workman, while referring to CMP No. 4206 of 2014 in the writ 3 petition and has tried to make out a new case as such by referring to various awards passed by the various Tribunals in favour of other workmen. 4. We are of the considered opinion that such exercise is futile. The learned Single Judge was only to examine the jurisdictional error or lack of exercising jurisdiction by the Labour Court and keeping in view the said principles, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the award passed by the Labour Court had not suffered from any infirmity or illegality. 5. It is to be noticed that the reference to the Labour Court as such was regarding the breaks in service given to the workman from April, 2000 to July 2010 and the persons junior to him having been engaged continuously, and to what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation, the workman was entitled to. The case of the workman as set up in the claim petition was that he was appointed as a daily wage Beldar in the month of July, 1999 and he served as such till 2004. 4 6. The stand of the respondent-State as such was that the workman had been engaged as a daily wage worker for seasonal work in the month of April, 2000 and was engaged as an intermittent worker, as per the Manday’s Chart Ext. R-1, Ext. RW-1/B and Ext. RW-1/C. Therefore, the issues of continuance in service and termination from the year 2010 as such had become redundant. It was the specific stand of the respondents-State that the workman had left the job on his own and thereafter, was re-engaged in the year 2012 and thereafter, was continuing to be in service and he had not completed 240 days in any calender year since his engagement. 7. Keeping in view the issue raised and the evidence which has come on record, the Tribunal has given a finding that the workman was a seasonal worker who used to work as per his convenience and, therefore, the pleadings of the workman that his services were disengaged, were a lie from his mouth. 8. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had been appointed in the year 1999 and on 5 the basis of the Mandays’ Chart Ext. R-1, Ext. RW-1/B and Ext. RW-1/C, the record having been duly examined and scrutinized and the fact that the demand had been raised after 10 years, the claim of the workman that he had been discriminated as such, has been rightly rejected. 9. Resultantly, the learned Single Judge had come to the conclusion that it was not a case where artificial fictional breaks in service were given to the claimant by the respondent-State and therefore, the claim of the petitioner was not maintainable. 10. It is not the case of the claimant that the respondents-State had withheld any record as such, and any adverse inference could be recorded against them. They had produced the relevant Mandays’ Chart and the Labour Court, after examining the record in detail, had come to the conclusion that the case set up as such regarding fictional breaks, was incorrect. In such circumstances, the limited judicial review by the learned Single Judge was regarding the award as such and the exercise having been carried out, we do not 6 find that there was any illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the Labour Court. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is upheld. 12. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. July 16, 2025 (Ranjan Sharma) (hemlata) Judge.