2025:HHC:32536 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 2551 of 2024 Decided on : 04.09.2025 Sh. Bhim Singh …Petitioner Versus The Divisional Forest Officer …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “a) A writ in the nature of Certiorari be passed for quashing and setting aside the Award dated 20.7.2019, passed in Reference No. 176 of 2017, in reference titled as Bhim SinghVs. The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.by the Ld. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kangra at Dharamshala (Annexure P-1) and petitioner be granted 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:32536 reinstatement with continuity, seniority, along with all other consequential benefits and back wages instead of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. b) Reference be answered in favour of petitioner.” 2. The petitioner has assailed Award dated 20.07.2019, passed by the learned Labour Court, in terms whereof, the Reference made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court was answered by the learned Labour Court by dismissing the claim petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the impugned Award as well as other documents appended with the petition. 4. On an Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner, the appropriate Government made the following Reference to the learned Labour Court:- “Whether the termination of services of Shri Bhim Singh S/O Shri Lekh Ram, R/O Village Jhilan, P.O. Jhatingri, Tehsil Padhar, District Mandi, H.P. from time to time during July, 2007 to September, 2015 and finally terminated during October, 2015 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Joginder Nagar, District. Mandi, H.P. without complying with the provisions of the 3 2025:HHC:32536 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as alleged by the workman, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, past service benefits, seniority, regularization and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employer/management?" 5. The case put up by the claimant before the Labour Court was that he was engaged by the Department on daily wage basis in the year 2006. He worked under the supervision of Range Forest Officer, Urla, till the year 2015. Range Forest Officer used to disengage his services without any written order so that he could not complete 240 days in a calendar year. His services were terminated in the year 2015. In between 2006 and 2015, fictional breaks were given to him. No muster roll, casual card or wage slips were provided to the petitioner. Persons junior to him were retained in service. Accordingly, he prayed for his re-engagement with consequential benefits. 6. The Department took the stand that petitioner was engaged as a casual labourer during the month of July, 2006, on seasonal forestry work. He worked intermittently as per the availability of work and funding for the months of July, October and November 2006. In the year 2007, he had hired the work 4 2025:HHC:32536 from the Department on bill basis and received the payment for the execution of work. No fictional breaks as alleged was given to him. He had not completed 240 days in preceding 12 months to fulfill the conditions of Section 25 B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). No person junior to the petitioner was engaged and the petitioner was otherwise also gainfully employed being an agriculturist. 7. Learned Trial Court framed the following issues vide order dated 10.08.2018:- “1. Whether time to time termination of service of the petitioner by the respondent during July. 2007 to September, 2015 is/was legal and justified as alleged? OPP 2. Whether final termination of services of petitioner by the respondent during October, 2015 is/was legal and justified as alleged? OPP 3. If issue no.1 or issue no.2 or both are proved in affirmative, to what service benefits the petitioner is entitled to? OPP 4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? OPR 5. Relief.” 5 2025:HHC:32536 8. It rejected the claim by holding that the contention of the workman was that he had worked with the Department till September, 2015, when his services were terminated. Learned Court held that as per Man-days Chart Ex.RW-1/B, the petitioner had worked up till the year 2015 but Divisional Level Revised Seniority List of casual labourer daily wagers of Joginder Nagar, Forest Division, as it stood on 30.11.2016 (Ex.PW1/B), reflected the name of the petitioner at Sr. No. 66. Learned Court observed that this was also admitted by the petitioner. Learned Court held that had the services of the petitioner been actually terminated in the month of October, 2015, there was no occasion for his name being reflected in the said list. The Court further held that this demonstrated that the petitioner was not speaking the truth and as his services were not terminated in the month of October, 2015, there was no retrenchment. Learned Court also held that no artificial breaks were provided to the petitioner and his services were not terminated as alleged by him. 9. Though learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the findings returned by the learned 6 2025:HHC:32536 Labour Court were incorrect, but he could not demonstrate from the record that the findings were perverse. Learned counsel could not demonstrate to the contrary that indeed in terms of Ex.PW1/B, the petitioner was serving with the Department, which clearly demonstrated that his contention that his services were terminated in the month of October, 2015 were incorrect. It could also not be demonstrated during the course of the hearing of this petition that persons junior to the petitioners were either retained by the Department or that indeed any fictional breaks were given to them. 10. Therefore, as the findings returned in the Award by the learned Labour Court are based on the record and it could not be demonstrated that the same were perverse and contrary to the record, as this Court finds no merit in this petition, this same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 04, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)