High Court of Himachal Pradesh · 2008

The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 . No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.M. Bisht and Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate Generals. Rajiv Sharma, Judge. A challenge has been laid by way of this petition to the order dated 13.9.1999 passed by the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1600/99. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the workman for convenience sake) was engaged on daily wage basis in the month of February, 1995 in the I&PH Sub Division Nankhari, Sub Tehsil Nankhari, District Shimla. His services were terminated on 28th February, 1999. He approached the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 1600/1999 primarily contending therein that though he was engaged in the month of 1 Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

No . February, 1995, but he had been given artificial breaks to prevent him from completing 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months. It was also stated in the original application that three persons, namely, Ram Singh, Beli Ram and Ravinder were juniors to him. The learned Tribunal dismissed the original application on 13.9.1999. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate had strenuously argued that the department had given the fictional breaks to the workman though similarly situated persons had been permitted to complete 240 days. He has also stated that the workmen junior to him have been retained while his client was retrenched on 28.2.1999. Mr. R.M. Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General has supported the order dated 13.9.1999. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The workman was engaged as is evident from the man-day(cid:146)s chart annexed with the reply to the writ petition in March 1995.

Beli Ram was engaged in the month of February, 1995. Ram Singh was also engaged in the month of February, 1995. These two workmen are definitely senior to the present petitioner. Though Ravinder was engaged in the month of May, 1995, but he had completed 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months. Beli Ram and Ram Singh had also completed more than 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months as per Annexure R-1. If the workman had been given any artificial breaks, he should have approached the appropriate forum for the redressal of his grievance at the earliest. Since the workman had not completed 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months preceding his retrenchment, the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal had come to a just conclusion that there is no violation of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. Consequently there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. March 5, 2008 *Awasthi* (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. (Deepak Gupta), Judge.