IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. : 510 of 2007 Date of decision : 3.1.2008. Pawan Kumar …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. … Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. M.A. Khan, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. A challenge has been laid to the award passed by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, in reference No. 65/2002 (RBT No.285/04) dated 18th December, 2006. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the State Government has made the following reference to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala : “Whether the verbal termination w.e.f. 21.12.1999 of Shri Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Vyas Dev by the Executive Engineer, H.P.P.W.D Division Salooni, District Chamba, H.P. and intermittent breaks in daily wage job time and again given to the concerned workman is legal and justified? If not, what seniority, service benefit and relief the concerned workman is entitled to?” In sequel to the reference made by the State Government, the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the workman for convenience sake) filed his statement of claim. The respondent had filed the detailed reply to the claim petition preferred by the workman. It was contended in the reply that the workman had left his job on 21.12.1999 and thereafter he was reengaged and did not turn up for duties w.e.f. March, 2001. The labour Court dismissed the claim petition on 18.12.2006 on the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ground that the workman had not assailed his subsequent retrenchment with effect from March, 2001. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted during the course of hearing that his client has served demand notice on the Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Salooni Division against his retrenchment effected in the month of March, 2001, but no action was taken upon the same. He further contended that after the issuance of demand notice it was imperative for the Labour Officer to commence the conciliation proceedings in accordance with law. The Court passed the following order on 5.10.2007 on the basis of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, which reads thus: Pursuant to order dated 12th September, 2007 the petitioner has filed the supplementary affidavit giving therein the details of the representation made to the Labour Officer-cum- Conciliation Officer on 16th May, 2007. The respondent No.1 is directed to file reply to the same and also to apprise the Court whether the conciliation proceedings have commenced after the representation made on 16th May, 2007 or not. If the conciliation proceedings have not commenced, the same shall commence within a period of three weeks from today and the State Government will be apprised of the same. The needful be done within a period of three weeks. In sequel to the order by this Court on 5.10.2007, the respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed the supplementary affidavit. It is stated in the supplementary affidavit that the conciliation proceedings have been commenced by the Labour Officer-cum- Conciliation Officer, Chamba. In view of this no further order is required to be issued except that the Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, Chamba, will complete the process of conciliation within a period of four weeks from today. The Labour Officer-cum- Conciliation Officer will send his final report to the State Government immediately after the expiry of four weeks and thereafter the State Government will pass appropriate orders after the receipt of the report within a further period of four weeks. The writ petition is disposed of in view of the observation made here-in- above. No order as to costs. ( Rajiv Sharma), January 3, 2008 Judge ™