IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 103 of 2004 Date of decision: 14.12.2010. Lekh Raj …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar Sud, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. No. 1 to 3. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the award of the learned Presiding Judge, H.P.Labour Court, Shimla, dated 13.3.2003 whereby the petition of the present petitioner was dismissed on the ground that he is not a workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act since he has not worked for 240 days in a calendar year. 2. Even if, calendar year is not taken into consideration, from the man-days chart, which is placed on record, it is apparent that prior to the termination of the services of the petitioner in the month of July, 1989 he had not completed 240 days in the previous 12 months. If the period from 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 August, 1988 to July, 1989 is taken into consideration then also the petitioner has not completed 240 days. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. 14th December, 2010 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge