IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.24 /2008 Reserved on:26.11.2008 Decided on:5.12. 2008 State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Petitioners. Versus Gian Chand. …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No For the petitioners : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : Ms. Charu Gupta, Advocate vice Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. This petition is directed against the award dated 3.1.2006 passed by the Himachal Pradesh Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharmshala in reference No. 274/2001. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the State Government has made the following reference to the Labour Court: “Whether the act of Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Salooni, District, Chamba, H.P. not regularizing the services of Sh. Gian Chand S/o Sh. Magha Ram w.ef. 1.1.1994 is proper and justified? If not, what reliefs the above workman is entitled to?” 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 In sequel to the reference made by the State Government, the respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘the workman’ for convenience sake) has filed the claim petition before the Labour Court. It was primarily averred by the workman in the claim petition that he was employed on daily wage basis with effect from 1994 at Bhalei Forest Range. He had completed 240 working days continuously in every ten calendar years. Thus he was entitled to be regularized. It was also averred by the workman in the claim petition that the persons junior to him have been regularized. The employer has filed the reply to the claim petition. It was denied that the workman had completed 240 days since 1984 regularly. The other contention of the employer was that in the Forest Department there is no regular work and only seasonal and casual work is available. There is no denial at all that the persons junior to the workman have been regularized. The workman has filed the rejoinder to the reply filed by the employer. The Labour Court on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, answered the reference in affirmative and the workman was held entitled to be considered for regularization of his services in accordance with law vide award dated 3.1.2006. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the award dated 3.1.2006 is not sustainable. He has also contended that the Labour Court has failed to take into consideration the evidence led by the parties in right perspective. Ms. Charu Gupta, Advocate appearing vice counsel on behalf of the workman has supported the award dated 3.1.2006. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 3 The workman had appeared as PW-1. He has deposed that he has completed ten years of continuous service. He has further deposed that he was entitled to be regularized with effect from 1.1.1994 since he was engaged as Nursery Chowkidar with effect from 1984. He has given the names of the persons, who were junior to him, namely, Hans Raj, Uttam Singh and Chain Lal who had been regularized but he has been left out. He has placed on record copy of representation Ex.PA. Sh. H.S. Kanwar, Divisional Forest Officer has appeared as RW-1 on behalf of the employer/management. He has categorically admitted in his cross- examination that persons, namely, Samaru and Hans Raj have been regularized before the workman. However, he could not produce the original record. He has further admitted that the workman should have also been regularized when these persons were regularized. The workman has not been cross-examined by the employer. He has categorically stated, as observed hereinabove, that he was engaged with effect from 1984 and has completed ten years uninterrupted service in the year 1994. RW-1 Sh. H.S. Kanwar has admitted that the persons junior to workman have been regularized. The Labour Court has rightly drawn the adverse interference under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 against the employer for not producing the record of the case. RW-1 has admitted that the workman ought to have been regularized when the persons junior to him were regularized. The Labour Court after appreciating the evidence led by the parties has come to a right conclusion that the workman was entitled for regularization after completion of 8/10 years of service as per the policy framed by the State Government. There is neither any jurisdictional error nor any procedural irregularity in the award dated 3.1.2006. 4 Consequently, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 5.12. 2008 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*