IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 5489 of 2011 Date of Decision:25th July, 2011 Kamal Chand Sharma Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph,C.J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. For the appellants :Mr.Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Trilok Jamwal, Advocate Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- (i) To quash the award passed by the Ld. Labour Court Annexure P-5. (ii) Directing respondents to re-engage the petitioner in service with retrospective effect alongwith all consequential relief’s of back wages, continuity of service regularization, promotion and other allied service benefits besides the costs of petition.” 2. The Industrial Tribunal, in the impugned award dated 5.3.2011 passed in Reference No.16 of 2007, titled as Kamal Chand Sharma vs. The Executive 2 Engineer, H.P.S.E.B., has clearly held that petitioner was not employed/engaged with the respondent department as a daily wage worker. He was working, on contract basis, as a Gauge Reader. His services were not entered in the muster-roll either. 3. The Tribunal has correctly appreciated the material placed on record, including oral and documentary evidence, in holding that petitioner had been working as a contractor and as such executing the work orders placed upon him from time to time. In fact petitioner himself has admitted that he was not engaged on muster-roll basis and work was executed on the basis of work orders supplied to him over a period of time commencing from December, 1997. 4. As such, petitioner cannot be said to be an employee of the respondent and reference has been rightly answered by the Tribunal. It cannot be said that “services” of the petitioner were wrongly terminated by the respondent with effect from 26.9.2000. 5. Reliance placed upon the order dated 30.10.2000 passed by the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 256 of 2000, titled as Ramesh Chand vs. HPSEB, is misconceived on facts. The Court was dealing with the case where not only name of the concerned employee was entered in the muster-roll but man day(s) chart was also prepared. The employee was 3 engaged on daily wage basis, which is not the case in hand. 6. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice 25th July, 2011 (Justice Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.