SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(HP) 938

RAVI MALIMATH
Budhi Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Ms. Ritta Goswami, Additional Advocate General

JUDGMENT :

Ravi Malimath, J.

The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged on daily wage basis as Beldar in the respondent-Department, namely, office of the Executive Engineer, HPPWD (B&R), Division Killar, District Chamba (H.P.). Since the year 1988, he had been continuously working with the respondents. However, somewhere in August, 2004, he was terminated from service. He thereafter raised a dispute before the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala. Vide impugned Award dated 25.02.2013, the plea of the petitioner in Reference No.247/2012, was answered against the employee. Hence, this petition.

2. Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are incorrect as the petitioner did not leave work of his own. On the contrary, he was terminated from service being a person who had no voice with the employer. However, thereafter, he continued to make representations to the respondents, but to no avail. Due to poverty of the petitioner, he is not in a position to survive and that he may be reinstated in service as a daily wage worker. The same is disputed by Ms. Ritta Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top