2026:HHC:5004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9794 of 2014 Decided on: 28th February, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bhag Singh …..Petitioner Versus The Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. C.N. Singh and Mr. Anshul Gandhi, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner’s claim petition was dismissed by the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala vide award dated 19.09.2013. In view of reference having been answered against him, petitioner has instituted this writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. Petitioner has grievance with respect to alleged fictional breaks granted to him during the year 2000 to 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:5004 July, 2010 by the respondents. Following reference in this regard was sent by the Appropriate Government under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication to the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala:- “Whether termination of the services of Shri Bhag Singh S/O Shri Krishan Lal, Village Barkata, P.O. Behali (Haraboi), Sub Tehsil Nihri, District Mandi, H.P. from time to time during year, 2000 to July, 2010 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, as the abandonments are not established, is legal and justified? If not, what amount back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employer?” After appreciating the pleadings, the evidence and the submissions made by the parties, learned Labour Court did not concur with the version of the petitioner of him having been imposed fictional breaks in service by the respondents. Accordingly, the petitioner was not held entitled to any relief. 4. After considering the case record, I am of the considered view that no interference is called for with the impugned award. This is for the reason that the respondents had placed on record the man-days chart of the petitioner, Ext. RW1/B (Annexure P-3). As per the man- days chart, the petitioner had worked for 241 days during the year 2000, 140 in 2001, 0 in 2002, 49 in 2003, 0 in 3 2026:HHC:5004 2004, 56 in 2005, 0 in 2006, 0 in 2007, 166 in 2008, 200 in 2009 and 234 in the year 2010. The man-days chart has not been disputed by the petitioner. It is also not the case of the petitioner that any relevant record pertaining to his service had been withheld or any incorrect record was produced by the respondents. It is, thus, apparent that but for the year 2000, in which the petitioner had rendered 241 days of service and just about 240 days during the year 2010, the number of days put in by him in the remaining period between the years 2000 to 2010 (subject period of reference) was nowhere near to 240 days. Such long breaks could not be termed as artificial or fictional breaks. Petitioner’s allegation of respondents’ exploiting him by imposing fictional breaks in his service cannot be said to be bearing any element of truth as had that been the case, it was for the petitioner to raise objection at the relevant time. The evidence on record gives credence to the stand of the respondents that the petitioner was engaged only for seasonal works and that he used to report for duty as per his own convenience. That the respondents did not give any fictional breaks to the petitioner. Learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record a decision rendered in Hemender Singh Versus The Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial 4 2026:HHC:5004 Tribunal and another2, wherein in similar facts, allegations of imposition of unlawful fictional breaks had been leveled and the reference was decided against the workman by the learned concerned Labour Court. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner/ workman therein had not worked for 240 days in number of years and had worked only for nominal days in few years during the period in question. Such long breaks could not be termed as fictional breaks. The judgment was affirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in Hemender Singh Versus The Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala & another3. 5. For the foregoing reasons, no interference is called for with the impugned award. This writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua February 28, 2026 Judge Mukesh 2 CWP No.9795 of 2014, decided on 24.02.2025 3 LPA No.319 of 2025, decided on 16.07.2025