IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.26 /2008 Reserved on:26.11.2008 Decided on:5.12.2008 State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Petitioners. Versus Sobhia Ram. …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 23.3.2006 passed by the Himachal Pradesh Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharmshala in reference No. 287/2001. 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. in not regularizing the services of Sh. Sobhia Ram S/o Sh. Janta 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. The case set up by the workman was that he was engaged in the year 1976 at Bhalei Forest Range, Forest Division Salooni. He has further averred that he has completed ten continuous years service in the year 1993 and the persons junior to him have been regularised in service. The management has filed the reply to the claim petition. The workman has filed rejoinder to the reply. The Labour Court on the basis of the evidence led by the parties answered the reference in favour of the workman and he was held entitled for regularization. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the award dated 23.3.2006 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 23.3.2006. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The workman had appeared as PW-1. He has deposed that he was engaged in the year 1976 as Chowkidar and has completed 240 days in each calendar year. He has given the names of S/Sh. Hans Raj, Naresh and Hukkam Singh, who according to him were juniors but have been regularized. Sh. H.S. Kanwar, Divisional Forest Officer, Salooni has appeared as RW-1 on behalf of the employer. He has admitted that S/Sh. Samaru, Hans Raj and Chanalu have been regularized, however, 3 he did not know the exact date of their regularization. He has stated in his cross-examination that he could not produce the record even if he is given another opportunity. There is no cross-examination by the employer to the statement of workman Sh. Sobhia. He has categorically stated that he was engaged in the year 1976 and has completed 240 days in each calendar year. He is liable to be regularized with effect from 1.1.1994. S/Sh. Samaru, Hans Raj and Chanalu have been regularized. The Labour Court has rightly drawn adverse inference against the management for non-production of the record in the court. The Labour Court on the basis of the statement of PW-1, RW-1 and as per documentary evidence has rightly decided the reference in favour of the workman. There is neither any jurisdictional error nor any procedural irregularity in the award dated 23.3.2006 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*