JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala held the respondent entitled to reinstatement on daily wage basis from the date of his disengagement alongwith seniority and continuity in service. Respondent was also held entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of back wages. The aforesaid award passed by the learned Labour Court on 05.04.2025 has been challenged by the State in the present writ petition. 2. Heard learned Additional Advocate General and considered the case file. 3. Following reference was sent for adjudication before the learned Labour Court: - "Whether termination of daily/bill basis services of Shri Roop Chand S/O Shri Ruwalu Ram, R/O Village & P.O. Gopalpur, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. w.e.f. August, 2015 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Suket Forest Division, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employer?” 3(i) The case set up by the respondent in his claim petition was that he was engaged as a forest worker on daily wages muster roll by the petitioners. He continued to serve under the supervision of Range Officer Sarkaghat, District Mandi till 2016 without any break. He completed more than 240 days from 2013 to 2016 in each calendar year and also during last 12 months preceding the date of his termination, though the payment orders were not issued to him by petitioners for the entire duration of his service ; Petitioners neither issued any notice nor any charge sheet to the respondent, but terminated his service w.e.f. August/15.09.2016. Retrenchment compensation was also not paid to the respondent. Principles of natural justice were also not followed. Respondent also alleged that persons junior to him named in the claim petition had been retained by the petitioners. A person was specifically named in the claim petition who was statedly engaged in respondent’s place without giving the respondent an opportunity of reemployment. Respondent further claimed to have made representations on 24.09.2016 and 03.10.2016 to the petitioners for his re-engagement, but without any success. Respondent, thus, alleged that petitioners had violated the provisions of Section 25(B)(G) and (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act in short). Respondent further claimed to have made representations on 24.09.2016 and 03.10.2016 to the petitioners for his re-engagement, but without any success. Respondent, thus, alleged that petitioners had violated the provisions of Section 25(B)(G) and (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act in short). In addition to above, respondent also pleaded that during his service, he though continued to receive payment from the petitioners, but at times, petitioners prepared vouchers in the name of Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh. Ruwalu Ram, r/o Village Matehri P.O. Gopalpur, Sh. Roop Singh S/o Sh. Ruwalu Ram R/o VPO Gopalpur as also Smt. Bandna Devi W/o Sh. Roop Chand, whereas, the information supplied to the respondent under the Right to Information Act revealed that the aforesaid persons did not even exist. In any case, according to the respondent, the aforesaid persons had never worked under Range Officer Sarkaghat. Respondent pleaded that payment was wrongly shown to have been made to the above persons in order to deprive him of his rights on completion of 240 days’ of continuous service. 3(ii) Petitioners asserted that respondent had been engaged merely as a casual worker for raising and maintaining the nursery in Sarkaghat Forest Range on bill /contract basis. Respondent’s services were not retrenched as he was a casual worker. Petitioners admitted paying the respondent during the years 2013 to 2016 on bill /contract basis. Petitioners denied respondent having completed 240 days work in any calendar year. Petitioners also denied having violated any provision of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to the petitioners, respondent had left the work of Sarkaghat nursery after 31.07.2016 of his own. Consequently, they deployed a daily wage worker for the work previously performed by the respondent. It was also pleaded that respondent had been called to work on bill/contract basis vide letters dated 05.07.2017 and 15.07.2017, but he did not turn up. Parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. On considering the same, learned Labour Court allowed the claim petition, ordering reinstatement of the respondent on daily wage basis from the date of his disengagement alongwith seniority and continuity in service from the date of his initial engagement. In lieu of back wages, respondent was entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 4. On considering the same, learned Labour Court allowed the claim petition, ordering reinstatement of the respondent on daily wage basis from the date of his disengagement alongwith seniority and continuity in service from the date of his initial engagement. In lieu of back wages, respondent was entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that there was no evidence on record to suggest respondent having worked for 240 days in any calendar year during the projected period i.e. from 2013 to 2016. It was further highlighted that respondent had been engaged only for performing seasonal work in Forest nursery. He had left the job of his own accord and despite having been issued letters to join, he did not turn up. In this background, it was asserted that petitioners did not breach the provisions of the Act. Prayer was accordingly made to set aside the award. 5. Scope for interference with the awards passed by learned Labour Court was summed up in K.V.S. Ram Vs. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation , (2015) 12 SCC 39 as under:- “14. Once the Labour Court has exercised the discretion judicially, the High Court can interfere with the award, only if it is satisfied that the award of the Labour Court is vitiated by any fundamental flaws. We do not find that the award passed by the Labour Court suffers from any such flaws. While interfering with the award of the Labour Court, the High Court did not keep in view the parameters laid down by this Court for exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India and the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.” In Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi Vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd. , (2014)11 SCC 85 Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court can interfere with an Order of the Tribunal only on the procedural level and in cases, where the decision of the lower courts has been arrived at in gross violation of the legal principles. The High Court shall interfere with factual aspect placed before the Labour Courts only when it is convinced that the Labour Court has made patent mistakes in admitting evidence illegally or have made grave errors in law in coming to the conclusion on facts. The High Court shall interfere with factual aspect placed before the Labour Courts only when it is convinced that the Labour Court has made patent mistakes in admitting evidence illegally or have made grave errors in law in coming to the conclusion on facts. The High Court granting contrary relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution amounts to exceeding its jurisdiction conferred upon it. Learned Labour Court after thorough discussion, correctly held that there is no intelligible differentia between a daily wage worker and a bill based worker. Merely on the basis of mode of payment, no differentiation can be created between the two categories. Reference in this regard can be made to State of H.P. and others Vs. Mohar Singh , LPA No.251 of 2025 decided on 23.05.2025, wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench reiterated that artificial distinction created by the Department between a daily wager and bill based worker, cannot be accepted. Relevant portion from the judgment reads as under: - “7. The defence as such of the State was that the writ petitioner was bill based worker and was not a daily wager as such. 8. The learned Single Judge rejected the said argument that it was a mainly artificial distinction, which has been created by the Department to a daily wager as a bill based worker; and that the work which has been taken from the writ petitioner by the Department was only of daily wager and now the new nomenclature has been fixed as daily wage basis. 9. The said earlier decision of learned Single Judge has already been upheld by us in LPA No.60 of 2025, titled as State of H.P. vs. Ram Singh, decided on 27.02.2025. The relevant part of the said judgment, reads as under:- “3. The argument raised before learned Single Judge, which has now also been repeated, is that the employee, as such, had been appointed on “bill basis” and not on “daily wage basis” and, therefore, the policy dated 22.04.2020 was not applicable in this case. 4. Learned Single Judge found that there was no intelligible differentia between a “daily wage worker” and 4 “bill basis worker”, as such, and the benefit could not be denied in accordance with law on the basis of nomenclature and therefore, directed consideration, as noticed above, if the employee fulfilled the criteria of the regularization made in Annexure P-8. 5. 4. Learned Single Judge found that there was no intelligible differentia between a “daily wage worker” and 4 “bill basis worker”, as such, and the benefit could not be denied in accordance with law on the basis of nomenclature and therefore, directed consideration, as noticed above, if the employee fulfilled the criteria of the regularization made in Annexure P-8. 5. It is not the case of the State that the policy of regularization is not applicable in this case and the only distinction sought to be made out is that the employment is on “bill basis” and therefore, the employee is not a daily wager who would be covered under the policy in question. The nomenclature as such, which has been given apparently by the State is on account of fertile imagination of the Department. Nothing was placed on record before the learned Single Judge to show that the nomenclature as such, which had been given of “bill basis” and that raising of a bill for a specific work as such, which might keep the employer out of the policy. The only document which was appended with the written statement as such, was a letter from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to the Department that certain employees as such had worked on “bill basis” and thus were not covered under the policy of regularization in view of the services provided. The written statement is silent about the nature of work which was done and whether it was for a specific purpose, which would have consumed the whole day or not and for which a bill might have been raised. Thus, the nomenclature which has been given by the Department, would not as such absolve it from the applicability of policy of the State to deny the benefit of regularization. 6. The learned Single Judge had noticed that the employment is from the year 2015 which was the categorical case in the writ petition and that the petitioner had completed 240 days in each calendar w.e.f. 01.01.2015 and appended the necessary man- days chart, regularization policy and a representation given on 01.12.2023. It would go on to show that communication dated 21.02.2021 regarding the appellant along with ten other daily wage workers for regularization was sent to the Chief Conservator of Forest, as per the regularization policy, but no action had been taken. 7. It would go on to show that communication dated 21.02.2021 regarding the appellant along with ten other daily wage workers for regularization was sent to the Chief Conservator of Forest, as per the regularization policy, but no action had been taken. 7. In such circumstances, the writ petition has been filed and there is no denial of the fact that the matter had been forwarded by the Chief Conservator of Forest and it is only a general denial that the claim is not tenable in view of the nomenclature. No material worth any substance was placed before the learned Single Judge, as noticed above, regarding the particular type of work for which the petitioner was appointed by the Department and whether the said work was not similar to that of the daily wager. 8. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the distinction which is sought to be carved out by the State is without any justification or in the absence of any documentation placed on record. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed consideration as per the policy of the State itself being recognized by the 6 State to give the benefit of regularization being a welfare State which now cannot wriggle out from its own policy by resorting to this frivolous litigation. 9. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present appeal, the same is dismissed alongwith pending application(s), if any.” 10. Nothing could be brought to our notice that whether the bill was raised for a specific work and the employee was only asked to do certain type of work for certain days only and he was not a daily wager. He was working continuously with the appellant-Department and the regularization has thus been ordered on the basis of a Policy of the State Government itself. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is no reason as such to take a different view, we have already taken.” Apart from the above, learned Labour Court has taken note of the fact that during respondent’s cross- examination, a suggestion was put by the petitioners that he had worked on muster roll basis, which was replied by him in affirmative. Another suggestion was made to the respondent that that he had worked for the whole year, to this suggestion also, respondent had answered in positive. Another suggestion was made to the respondent that that he had worked for the whole year, to this suggestion also, respondent had answered in positive. On the basis of evidence, it was also held that the documents i.e. in the form of bills produced in the case file indicated respondent having worked for different months of the year and not just for particular season to be termed as seasonal worker as was asserted by the petitioners. With respect to respondent’s plea of some bills having been issued in the names of different persons to unlawfully deprive him from the benefits of 240 days of continuous service, after considering the documents produced on record as also the report of Panchayat Secretary, the statement of Smt. Bandna Devi wife of the petitioner, it was justly observed that the bills in question statedly issued in the names of other persons, did not reflect correct position. Persons in whose names bills were issued did not reside at the addresses given in the bills. The bills were camouflaged in order to suppress number of man-days to deprive the petitioner from continuing for the requisite period of work, which would have entitled him for benefits under the Act. The evidence led by the respondent workman before the learned Labour Court for establishing that his man-days were wrongly prepared, bills/vouchers were wrongly drawn in names of nonexistent persons as also the conclusion drawn by the learned Labour Court on the said evidence, has not been questioned in this petition. Further, learned Labour Court deduced justiciable inference from the positive suggestion given by the petitioners to the respondent during his cross-examination of his having worked for the entire year. Petitioners’ contention of having written letters on 05.07.2017 and 15.07.2017 to the respondent for joining, was also not accepted as service of these letters upon the respondent was not proved. The benefit on this aspect was correctly extended in favour of the respondent as he had proved on record representations/notices/letters issued by him to the petitioners in March and September 2016 for allowing him to join the work. It was held to be not a case of voluntary abandonment of work by the respondent- workman. 6. Findings of learned Labour Court are in order and based upon proper appreciation of case and evidence produced by the parties. It was held to be not a case of voluntary abandonment of work by the respondent- workman. 6. Findings of learned Labour Court are in order and based upon proper appreciation of case and evidence produced by the parties. It is not even the case of the petitioners that any evidence was left out from consideration. In view of above discussion, there is no plausible reason to interfere with the impugned award. The present petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of.