JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

Notice. Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner claims to have worked with the respondents on daily wage basis with effect from 1993 to 1994 when his services came to be terminated. No steps were taken by the petitioner to assail the termination order and it is only somewhere in the year 2018 that the petitioner approached the Labour Commissioner for referring the dispute to the Court. However, the said request was declined by the Labour Commissioner, constraining the petitioner to file an application under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 before the Presiding Judge, H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court, Shimla, (for short ‘Tribunal’), wherein he prayed for the following relief:

“It is therefore respectfully prayed that directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to re-instate the claimant in service along-with all consequential benefits/relief(s) of back-wages, seniority, continuity and regularization of service and the cost of the petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the claimant in the interest of law and justice.”

3. The