IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.338/2006 Reserved on.18.6.2007 Decided on. July 12, 2007 State of H.P. & others. …Petitioners. Versus Mani Ram. …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1.No. For the petitioners : Mr. M.S. Chandel, Advocate General with M.A. Khan and Mrs. Meenakashi Sharma, Deputy Advocate Generals. For the respondents Mr. G.R. Palsara, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. A challenge has been laid to the award passed by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala in reference No.97/2003. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the State Government had made the following reference to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala: “Whether the termination of services of Shri Mani Ram son of Sadh Ram, Daily paid worker by i) The Conservator of Forest, Circle Kullu, H.P. ii) The Divisional Forest Officer, Parvati Division Shamshi, District Kullu, H.P. w.e.f. 1.9.2001 without any notice, charge sheet, enquiry and without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what relief of consequential service benefits 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 including back-wages seniority and amount of compensation Shri Mani Ram is entitled to?” The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the workman) had filed the statement of claim before the Labour Court. He had primarily contended that he was engaged with effect from April, 1998 on daily wage basis and continuously discharged his duties up to 31st August, 2001 and had completed 240 days preceding his retrenchment effected on 1st September, 2001. The employer had filed the reply to the statement of claim and had denied the contents of the statement of claim. The Labour Court had answered the reference in the affirmative holding the workman entitled to re-engagement on the same terms and conditions in which he was working on the date of his dis-engagement but he was allowed only 50% back wages. Learned Advocate General had strenuously contended that the award dated 21.10.2005 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Mr. G.R. Palsara, Advocate had supported the award dated 21.10.2005. I have heard the parties and perused the record. The workman had appeared as PW-1 before the Labour Court and had also filed his affidavit Ex.P-1. He had testified before the Labour Court that he was engaged in the month of April, 1998 and had continuously worked upto 31st August, 2001. He had denied the suggestion in his cross-examination that he was earlier requested to rejoin his duties in the year 2001. Sh. Chetan Singh Thakur RW-1, Sh. Kunj Lal RW-2 and Sh. Sohan Singh RW-3 had appeared on behalf of the employer but had not controverted any of the statement made by the workman in his affidavit. The petitioner had annexed Annexure P-1 with this petition i.e. man-days chart of the workman engaged on daily wage 3 basis in Kasol Range from April, 1998 to August, 2001. It is evident from the Annexure P-1 that the workman had completed 232 days in the year 2001, 324 days in the year 2000 and 364 days in the year 1999. The workman had served demand notice upon the employer on 22nd December, 2001. Though Sh. Sohan Singh (RW-3) and Sh. Kunj Lal (RW-2) had appeared as witnesses on behalf of the employer, but have not stated anything about the issuance of notice allegedly issued to the workman. The petitioner had filed copies of Annexures P-2 to P-6 with this petition but the same cannot be taken into consideration by this Court since these were required to be put to the witnesses before the Labour Court. The Labour Court on the basis of the statement made by the workman supported by his affidavit had come to a just conclusion that he had completed 240 days and it was mandatory to issue him notice under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or in lieu thereof he was entitled to one month wages. The Labour Court had only awarded 50% back wages to the workman which cannot be faulted with. There is neither any jurisdictional error nor any procedural irregularity in the award dated 21.10.2005 passed by the Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala. Accordingly there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Rajiv Sharma), Judge July 12, 2007 *Awasthi*