IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 3007 of 2021 Decided on 06th August 2025 The State of Himachal Pradesh and another …Petitioners Versus Shri Tara Chand alias Puran Chand …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent: Nemo. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- i) “That the impugned award dated 28.03.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra, at Dharamshala may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) That the record of claim petition under Reference No.272/2015 may kindly be summoned from the learned Labour Court, Kangra, at Dharamshala.” 2. The State is aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Labour Court in Reference No.272 of 2015, titled Shri Tara Chand alias Puran Chand versus The Divisional Forest 2 Officer, Mandi Forest Division, dated 28.03.2019, in terms whereof, the claim petition filed by the workman was disposed of as under:- “As a sequel to my findings on issues above, the instant claim petition succeeds in part and the same is partly allowed. The claim of the petitioner with regard to the final termination of his services in the month of November, 2013 being meritless and not maintainable is dismissed. However, it is held that the artificial/fictional breaks were provided to the petitioner by the respondent from July, 2000 till October, 2013 wrongly and illegally. The period of fictional breaks is ordered to be counted for the purpose of continuous service, except back wages. Since, it is own case of the respondent that the petitioner is still working with the department, so he is directed not to provide fictional breaks to the petitioner in future also. The claim petition to the extent succeeds and is allowed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. The reference is answered in the aforesaid terms. A copy of this Award the sent to the appropriate Government for publication the official gazette. File after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.” 3. Having heard learned Additional Advocate General and having perused the award under challenge, as well as other documents appended with the petition, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the award passed by the learned Labour Court. 3 4. The Appropriate Government on an industrial dispute raised by the workman made the following Reference to the learned Labour Court:- “Whether time to time termination of service of Shri Tara Chand alias Puran Chand S/o Ramsu, R/o village Sadehra, P.O. Sidhyani, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P., by the Divisional Forest Officer, Mandi, Forest Division, district Mandi, H.P. during July, 2000 to October, 2013 and finally during November, 2013, 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 worker is entitled to from the above employer?” 5. The claim of the workman before the learned Labour Court was that he was engaged as a daily wage Forest Worker on muster role basis in the year 1984-85. He continued to serve as such upto the month of October, 2013. However, his services were terminated from time to time by giving him fictional breaks, which act of the employer was bad in law. 6. On the strength of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Labour Court framed the following issues and the same were decided as under:- 4 1. Whether time to time termination of the services of petitioner during July, 2000 to October, 2013 by the respondent is illegal and unjustified as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether final termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent during November, 2013 is illegal and unjustified as alleged? OPP. 3. If issue No.1 and issue No.2 are proved in affirmative, to what service benefits the petitioner is entitled to? OPP. 4. Whether the present claim petitioner/reference is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? OPR. Issue No.1 : Decided accordingly Issue No.2 : Decided accordingly Issue No.3 : Decided accordingly Issue No.4 : Decided accordingly Relief : Petition is partly allowed per operative part of the award. 7. Learned Labour Court in terms of the award under challenge held that Exhibit RW-1/B demonstrated that the petitioner was initially engaged in the month of December, 1998 by the Forest Department and the defence of the employer that the workman was engaged for seasonal work and was offered work as and when the same was available and when the budged was available was not substantiated from the evidence on record. Learned Labour Court also held that the man-days chart demonstrated that in some years the petitioner had 5 worked for more than 150 days and even in the year 2013 he had served the respondent for 198 days and a person working for 198 days could not be termed as a seasonal worker. Learned Labour Court also held that whereas on one hand, the plea taken by the Department was that the petitioner was engaged as a seasonal worker as and when budget was available, but simultaneously it also took the plea that the petitioner himself had abandoned work of his own free will and volition and if the same was the case, then, why did the Department not issue any show cause notice or initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the workman. On these basis, learned Labour Court held that the Department was indeed guilty of the violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 8. Learned Additional Advocate General could not demonstrate that the findings returned by the Learned Labour Court were perverse or not borne out from the record of the case. 6 9. In fact, even in terms of the relief granted by the learned Labour Court the period of fictional breaks have been ordered to be counted for the purpose of the continued service except back wages. This was ordered for the reason that at the time of the passing of the award by the learned Labour Court, the petitioner was still working with the Department. 10. Thus, in these peculiar circumstances, as this Court sees no reason to interfere with the award passed by the learned Labour Court, this petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 06, 2025 (Vinod)