IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.4231/2008 Decided on:6.9.2010 _____________________________________________ Ram Kishan. …Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondent. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Nemo. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). The present petition has been filed by the petitioner against his retrenchment effected in the month of May, 1986. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he had completed 240 days preceding his retrenchment. However, as per the mandays’ chart Annexure R-1, petitioner had completed 53 days in the year 1993, 41 days in the year 1994, 150 days in the year 1995 and 58 days in the year 1996. Since the petitioner had not completed 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months preceding his retrench, no notice was required to be issued to him under section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 2. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 6.9.2010 *awasthi*