IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 50 of 2011. Decided on: June 28, 2011. Joginder Singh ….. Appellant. Versus H.P. State Forest Corp. Ltd. and ors. …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. V.B. Verma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. for respondents No. 3 and 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner is appellant. He has approached this Court seeking re-engagement in service. Admittedly, he was a daily wager in the Corporation. It appears that he was involved in a criminal case and according to the Corporation, he had not turned up for work, but it is admitted in the reply that he had submitted representations. According to the petitioner, no action was taken on the representations in view only of the pendency of the criminal case. The petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case in the year 2002. The learned single Judge has held that the petitioner has only abandoned the job and hence, no direction can be issued to re-engage the petitioner. Learned counsel for the appellant submits before us that the appellant may not be granted benefit of 2 continuity in service or back wages or seniority; however, he may be re- engaged with the benefit of past service. 2. Having gone through the writ records, it is seen that the petitioner had knocked the doors of the Corporation, even before the final order in the criminal case. Had it been the case of abandonment, nobody would have approached the employer for re-engagement. Though, normally this Court would not embark upon a roving enquiry in such matters, since the workman has an effective remedy before the Labour Court, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we do not think that it will be in the interest of justice to relegate the petitioner-appellant to the Labour Court at this distance of time. In the above circumstances, we set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and dispose of the appeal as follows:- In case the Corporation requires services of daily waged employees, the petitioner-appellant shall be preferentially engaged. In the event of such engagement of the petitioner- appellant, the Corporation may grant the benefit of past service rendered by the petitioner for the purpose of other eligible service benefits. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to continuity in service or back wages or seniority during the interregnum. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 28th June, 2011 ( Justice Sanjay Karol ), (pankaj/vt) Judge.