IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 8623/2008 Decided on:29.12.2010 _____________________________________________ Puran Chand. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Nemo. For the Respondents: Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he has been given fictional/artificial breaks to prevent him from competing 240 days. It is evident from Annexure R-1 that the petitioner has worked for 236 days in the year 1999 and 242 days in the year 2000. However, he has been given fictional breaks in the months of March, June and September 2001. Thereafter he has also been given the fictional/artificial breaks in the months of March and May, 2002. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 2. It is settled law by now that fictional/artificial breaks given to prevent the incumbent from completing the requisite period, amounts to unfair labour practice. 3. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to give fictional/artificial breaks to the petitioner henceforth. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 29.12.2010 *awasthi*