ORDER :

By way of instant petition, petitioners have assailed the Award dated 21.3.2016 passed by learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala (for short ‘Labour Court’) in Reference No. 135 of 2015.

2. The respondent herein (for short ‘workman’), on 8.10.2009, issued demand notice under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘Act’) upon petitioner No.2 (for short ‘employer’) whereby he sought redressal of his grievance in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

3. Workman claimed that he had worked as “Beldar” in Wildlife Division, Hamirpur on daily wage basis during the entire year of 2008 and he was illegally retrenched w.e.f. 01.01.2009. It was further alleged that after his retrenchment the employer engaged 17 workmen during 2009 without affording any opportunity of re-engagement to the workman. Principle of ‘last come first go’ was stated to have been violated. It was also the allegation of the workman that he was not allowed to complete 240 days in one year by employing fictional breaks. Thus, violations of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act were alleged.

4. The conciliation proceedings were unsuccessfully conducted by Conciliation Officer, whereafter failure report was submitted to the appropriate Government. Accordingly, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the appropriate Government with following reference:

“Whether the termination of services of Shri Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh, R/o Village and P.O. Nakrana, Tehsil Shree Naina Devi Jee, District Bilaspur, H.P. by the Divisional Forest Officer, Wild Life Division, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. w.e.f. 01.01.2009 without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and relief the above workman is entitled to?”

5. In his claim submitted before the Labour Court, the workman reiterated his pleas as raised in the demand notice and prayed for directions to the employer to re-engage the workman with benefits of due seniority and continuity in service.

6. The employer contested the claim of the workman on the grounds that the workman had worked only as a casual labour. The employer used to have seasonal works for raising of nursery and plantation etc. and workers were engaged as per availability of works and funds. It was further submitted that the workman used to attend the work as per his own wish. He was not regular in attending the work. The allegation of retrenchment of worker was specifically denied. As per employer, the workman had worked intermittently during the year 2008 for total 72 days. It was clarified that the persons engaged after 01.01.2009 were employed under the H.P. Zoos Conservation Breeding Society, in Monkey Sterilization Centre Saster, District Hamirpur and Gopalpur, District Kangra on contract basis after obtaining necessary permission from the Additional Chief Secretary (Forests) to the Government of H.P. It was stated that the workman was not entitled to seek parity with the persons so employed under the contract.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case.

8. The Labour Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether termination of the services of the petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. 01.01.2009 is/was improper and unjustified as alleged? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what service benefits the petitioner is entitled to? OPP

3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR

4. Relief.

9. The claim of workman was allowed partly and an award in the following terms was passed:

“As a sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, the reference/claim petition is allowed partly. The respondent is hereby directed to re-engage the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner shall be entitled to seniority and continuity in service from the date of his illegal termination except ba