IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 5755 of 2008. Decided on: 24.07.2010. ________________________________________________________________ Ram Lal. … Petitioner. Versus The Secretary, I.P.H. and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner. : None. For the Respondents. : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): Petitioner was engaged in the month of May, 1994 on daily wage basis. He had completed 197 days in 1994, 228 days in 1995, 230 days in 1996, 231 days in 1997 and 227 days in 1998. 2. The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that respondents are giving fictional breaks to him to prevent him from completing 240 days to enable him to seek regularization. The case of the respondent-State, precisely is that the petitioner has remained willfully absent during these days and in other words, the functionary of the State has not given any fictional break to the petitioner. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 3. A bare perusal of man-days chart, Annexure R-1, filed with the reply reveals that the petitioner has been prevented from completing 240 days in the years 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998. There is shortage of 12 days in 1995, 10 days in 1996, 9 days in 1997 and 13 days in 1998. 4. There is no material placed on record by the employer that the petitioner has remained absent willfully. The other reason why the petitioner could not complete 240 days could be due to cession of work, shortage of funds, illness etc. The employer has also not placed any material on record to prove that the petitioner had abandoned his job. The giving of artificial/fictional breaks amounts to unfair labour practice. It is also not evident from Annexure R-1 that the petitioner has been given the benefit of Sundays, paid holidays and gazetted holidays while calculating 240 days. In view of this, the act of the respondents of giving artificial/fictional breaks is declared illegal and the shortage of few days, as noticed above, is condoned. The respondents are directed not give any artificial/fictional breaks to the petitioner. 5. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition stands closed. There will be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. July 24, 2010. (sck).