2025:HHC:39027 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1932 of 2016 Decided on: 19.11.2025 Narain Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Senior Advocate, with M/s Nandita, Yug Singhal and Hitender Verma, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed Award, dated 15.09.2015 (Annexure P/2), passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Shimla, H.P., in Ref. No.43 of 2013, titled Narain Singh Versus The Divisional Forest Officer, in terms whereof, the Reference made by the Appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court was answered by the learned Labour Court by rejecting the claim of the workman. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that on an industrial dispute raised by the petitioner, following Reference was made by the Appropriate Government to the learned 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:39027 Labour Court:- “Whether the time to time termination of the services of Sh. Nara Singh S/o Sh. Sobh Ram, Village Lani, P.O. Koti Bounch, Tehsil Shillai, Distt. Sirmour, H.P. by the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Renukaji, Distt. Sirmour, H.P. from 2006 to 2007 and finally during March/ April, 2008 without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as alleged by the workman, is legal and justified? If not what amount of back wages, salary, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above workers is entitled to from the above employers?" 3. The claim petition filed by the petitioner before the learned Labour Court was to the effect that the petitioner was engaged as a daily rated beldar w.e.f. 01.02.2000, in Forest Range Shillai. On 01.04.2001, Range Officer, Forest Range, Shillai asked the petitioner not to report on duty and the services of the petitioner were thus, terminated orally without any notice. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an original application before erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, i.e. O.A. No.1230 of 2001, in which the interim order was passed by the learned Tribunal and a direction was issued to the Authority to re-engage the petitioner. This continued till September, 2006 and thereafter, the services of the petitioner were again terminated. It further stands 3 2025:HHC:39027 averred in the claim petition that the original application filed by the present petitioner was dismissed by the learned Tribunal on 01.03.2006 for want of jurisdiction with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court of Competent Jurisdiction. It is, thereafter, that he raised a Demand Notice and the same culminated into a Reference being made by the Appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court. It is further averred in the claim petition that whereas on one hand, the services of the petitioner were terminated, but persons junior to him were retained, details whereof are given in Para-22 of the claim petition. 4. In the reply filed to the claim petition, the contentions of the petitioner were denied by the employer. 5. On the strength of the pleadings of the parties as well as the evidence which was led by the parties, learned Labour Court answered the Reference by holding that as the petitioner had not completed more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding his termination, that is to say more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months as from the date of his termination, there was no violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. With regard to the alleged violation of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, learned Tribunal held that except the oral statement of the petitioner that Ratti Ram, Biri Singh and Mangal Singh, who were juniors to 4 2025:HHC:39027 the petitioner stood engaged by the employer, there was no other Reference placed on record by the petitioner to substantiate this fact. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the findings returned by the learned Labour Court with regard to violation of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act are not sustainable in the eyes of law. He candidly submitted that as far as the findings returned on Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act are concerned, the same though borne out from the record, but the factum of juniors being retained, was admitted by the witness of the Department, which has been ignored by the learned Labour Court. 7. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that there is no infirmity in the Award passed by the learned Labour Court, for the reason that the findings returned therein are clearly borne out from the record of the case and further there is no admission on the part of the witness of the Department that any person engaged after the petitioner was voluntarily retained by the Department, whereas the services of the petitioner were dispensed with illegality as alleged. 8. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as also learned Counsel for the respondents and have also carefully gone through the Award as well as the record of the case. 9. It is not much disputed that the findings returned by the 5 2025:HHC:39027 learned Labour Court with regard to the violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act are borne out of the record of the case, this Court is not dwelling on that aspect of the matter. 10. Coming to the issue of violation of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, a perusal of the record demonstrates that in Para-22 of the petition, it was averred by the workman that persons junior to him, i.e. Ratti Ram, Biri Singh, Hari Singh. Mangal Singh and one more Ratti Ram were retained by the Department, whereas the services of the petitioner were disengaged. 11. In the claim petition, it is not mentioned as to when above stated persons were engaged. This is relevant from the perspective that the record demonstrates that the petitioner in fact was engaged by the Department, even as per his contention, as a beldar on 01.02.2000 and thereafter, his services were terminated by the Range Officer on 01.04.2001. Now, the subsequent engagement of the petitioner, even as per his own admission, was in compliance with an order passed in an Original Application by the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal. It is also evident from the record that once that original application of the petitioner was dismissed, obviously as the interim protection granted to the petitioner seized to exist, the services of the petitioner were again disengaged. 6 2025:HHC:39027 12. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot take advantage of the service which he rendered with the Department on the strength of the interim order that was passed by the learned Tribunal and legality/ illegality of the act of the respondent has to be adjudged only with regard to the service which the petitioner rendered with the Department w.e.f. 01.02.2000 to 01.04.2001. In the claim petition, it is not mentioned as to when the persons allegedly junior to the petitioner were engaged. Perusal of the record demonstrates that the findings returned by the learned Tribunal that except bald assertions on the part of the petitioner, no evidence was placed on record to substantiate the same, are as per the record. Indeed, no evidence was led by the petitioner to substantiate the contentions of his juniors being retained while his services being allegedly terminated. 13. As far as the statement of Shri Vijay Pal Singh (RW-1), who was serving as Range Officer, dated 15.10.2014 is concerned, a perusal thereof demonstrates that he denied the suggestions put to him that persons junior to the petitioner were retained while his services were terminated and he volunteered in the Court that the services of one Hari Singh were retained on account of some Court order. Incidently, thereafter, no suggestion was given to said witness on the part of the claimant that Hari Singh was not retained on 7 2025:HHC:39027 account of the Court order. 14. In the backdrop of what has been observed hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that in the facts of this case, no interference with the Award passed by the learned Labour Court is called for. 15. Accordingly, in light of the above observation, this petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge November 19, 2025 (Rishi)