IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P.(T) No. 54 of 2011. Decided on: 14th December, 2011. Sh. Braham Dutt, son of Sh. Gauri Dutt, resident of Village Tirmali Diyas, P.O. Dadahu, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh. ….. Petitioner. -Versus- 1. State of H.P. through Secretary (Forest) to the Government of H.P. at Shimla. 2. Divisional Forest Officer, Nahan, Forest Division, Nahan, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh. 3. Range Officer, Range Office Jamta, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh. …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): Petitioner was engaged in the month of April, 1990. He has worked intermittently up to 2000. He was disengaged in the year 2000. He assailed his termination before the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 3046 of 2000. Learned Tribunal disposed of the Original Application and directed the State to re-engage the petitioner as per his seniority when the work would be available. Thereafter, the petitioner was re-engaged. He worked for 218 days in 2001 and for 142 days in 2002. His services were again terminated on 30th 2 September, 2002. Thereafter, he was re-engaged in the month of August, 2003. However, he was again retrenched on 12th December, 2003. 2. Case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that his termination on 12th December, 2003 is illegal. According to him, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has not been applied. Petitioner has also sought regularization. 3. In the instant case, the petitioner has not completed 240 days in a block of twelve calendar months preceding his retrenchment. Since the petitioner has not completed 240 days in a block of twelve calendar months preceding his retrenchment, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not attracted in this case. Now, as far as the regularization is concerned, since the petitioner has not completed 10 years’ continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year, the respondents cannot be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization. 5. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 14, 2011. (bhupender)