The burden of proof lies with the claimant to demonstrate continuous employment and unjustified breaks; failure to do so results in dismissal of claims under the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 19.09.2013, passed by learned Labour Court, in terms whereof the reference made by the appropriate Government was answered by the learned Labour Court by rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

2. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having carefully gone through the award in issue as well as record of the case, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the award. In terms of the record, on an industrial dispute being raised by the petitioner, the appropriate Government made the following referencefor adjudication to the learned Labour Court:-

"Whether termination of services/giving breaks of Shri Hemender Singh S/O Shri Gauri Dutt, Village Sarihani, P.O. Behali, Sub Tehsil Nihri, District Mandi, H.P. by the Divisional Forest Officer, Suket Forest Division, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. from time to time during his service period April, 2000 to July, 2010, whereas persons junior to him have been engaged continuously without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what amount back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled for the above mentioned period from the above employer?"

3. The case of the petitioner as set up in the claim petition was that he was appointed as a daily wage Beldar in the month of July, 1999 and he served as such till 2004. Thereafter, he was again engaged in the year 2008 and in the year 2011, his services were again terminated without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, the petitioner prayed that termination of his services as well as fictional breaks given to him, be held as bad and he be ordered to be reinstated with consequential benefits.

4. The stand of the Department was that the petitioner was engaged as a daily wage worker for seasonal work in April 2000 and he was engaged as an intermittent worker. It was denied that the services of the petitioner were disengaged in the year 2011. It was the specific stand of the Department that the petitioner left the job on his own and he thereafter was reengaged in the year 2012 and was continuing to be in service. It was also denied that the claimant has completed 240 days in any of the calendar years since his engagement.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following Issues were framed by learned Labour Court:-

“1. Whether giving breaks in service to the petitioner by the respondent from time to time during the period from April, 2000 to July, 2010 is illegal and unjustified as alleged? OPP

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

3. Whether the claim petition is hit by the vice of delay and laches as alleged. If so, its effect? OPR

4. Relief.”

6. On the strength of the evidence led by the parties, the Issues so framed were answered by learned Labour Court as under:-

“Issue No. 1: No.

Issue No. 2: Yes.

Issue No. 3: No.

Relief : Claim petition dismissed vide operative portion of the Award.”

7. Learned Labour Court, on the basis of record, returned the findings that as per Manday’s charts Ext. R-1, Ext. RW1/B and RW1/C, the petitioner was initially appointed in the month of April 2000. He did not complete 240 days in any calendar year. In fact, he did not work for a single day in the years 2002, 2004 and 2007. Thereafter, learned Labour Court observed that in the years 2003, 2005 and 2006, the petitioner worked for only 60, 55 and 30 days respectively. The alleged intentional breaks given to the petitioner were not agitated by him. Industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner at a belated stage, almost after 10 years as from the month when he was allegedly given fictional breaks.

8. Learned Labour Court also doubted the genuineness of the claims of the petitioner. In the considered view of this Court, the findings returned by learned Labour Court to the