IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2099 of 2026 Decided on: 26.02.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jagdish Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Loveneesh Singh Thakur,Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge A reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act in short) was decided against the petitioner on 05.06.2023. Almost three years later, petitioner has instituted this writ petition laying challenge to the same. 2. Following reference was sent by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the learned Labour Court- cum-Industrial Tribunal Kangra at Dharamshala:- “Whether time to time termination of the services of Shri Jagdish Kumar S/O Shri Paramdev, R/O Village Thatta, P.O. Deori, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 during October, 1999 to March, 2010, and finally during April, 2010 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Mandi Forest Division, Mandi, H.P. 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?" 3. Petitioner set out a claim that he was engaged as daily wage Beldar in the Forest Department during year 1997 and worked till March 2010; His services were verbally terminated by the respondents in the year 2010 contrary to law. Petitioner also alleged that his juniors had been retained and regularized, whereas, he was subjected to unfair labour practices. His seniority was disturbed by giving him fictional breaks over the years. Petitioner asserted violation of Sections 25 (F,G & H) of the Act by the respondents. Respondents’ defence was that petitioner had been engaged as casual labourer in the year 1999 for carrying out seasonal forestry works. Petitioner had only worked intermittently up to 2010. Respondents denied violating any legal provision. Parties led evidence. Petitioner in support of his case, produced on record man-days chart Ex. PW1/C. He stated that he was given work only for a few days every 3 year, which amounted to unfair labour practice. Respondents examined one Sh. Vasu Doegar, who besides exhibiting his affidavit, also tendered on record Ex. RW-1/B the seniority list and man-days charge Ex.RW-1/C. 4. On considering the pleadings, evidence and submissions urged for the parties, learned Labour Court- cum-Industrial Tribunal Kangra at Dharmashala held that the petitioner had worked only for 19 days in October 1999 and 30 days in November 1999. During the year 2000, petitioner worked only for 49 days. Petitioner did not work for a single day in the year 2001. In 2002, petitioner worked only for 42 days, in the year 2003, he worked for 30 days, in 2004 also petitioner worked for just 30 days. He did not work in the year 2005. Petitioner had rendered 59 days’ of service in the year 2006, 7 days in the year 2007, 31 days in the year 2008, 17 days in the year 2009 and 26 days in the year 2010. He worked intermittently during the years 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. The above factual position is not in dispute. Learned Tribunal, on the basis of evidence, justly drew the conclusion that petitioner had remained absent from work for years together and had served only for a few days in different years. His claim of having been given fictional 4 breaks cannot be accepted. Fictional breaks are breaks for smaller period. The purpose of giving fictional breaks normally is to ensure that a workman does not complete minimum 240 days in calendar year. That situation did not exist in the instant case. There had been long absence of the petitioner akin to termination. Learned Labour Court also rightly held that had the petitioner been prevented from working for whole of the year, he would not have chosen to sit idle. He would have raised his demand at the relevant time. Petitioner did not raise any demand with effect from the year 1999 to 2010. Since the petitioner had worked only for nominal days from the year 1999 to 2010 and this includes the period where petitioner did not work even for a single day in several years, he certainly failed to make a case for condonation of admitted long breaks. It is an admitted position that petitioner did not take any steps by issuance of demand notice etc. at the appropriate time. The natural inference is that petitioner was aware about his work being co-terminus with the particular season. Learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, therefore, was justified in observing that had the petitioner been not a causal worker, he would have raised the demand at the earliest. This writ petition filed three 5 years after the passing of the impugned award, therefore, lacks merit. 5. Consequently, present writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua February 26, 2026 Judge R.Atal