The court emphasized that the designation of a worker does not alter their rights under employment law when evidence indicates they meet statutory qualifications for protection.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala held the respondent entitled to reinstatement on daily wage basis from the date of his disengagement alongwith seniority and continuity in service. Respondent was also held entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of back wages. The aforesaid award passed by the learned Labour Court on 05.04.2025 has been challenged by the State in the present writ petition.

2. Heard learned Additional Advocate General and considered the case file.

3. Following reference was sent for adjudication before the learned Labour Court: -

"Whether termination of daily/bill basis services of Shri Roop Chand S/O Shri Ruwalu Ram, R/O Village & P.O. Gopalpur, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. w.e.f. August, 2015 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Suket Forest Division, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employer?”

3(i) The case set up by the respondent in his claim petition was that he was engaged as a forest worker on daily wages muster roll by the petitioners. He continued to serve under the supervision of Range Officer Sarkaghat, District Mandi till 2016 without any break. He completed more than 240 days from 2013 to 2016 in each calendar year and also during last 12 months preceding the date of his termination, though the payment orders were not issued to him by petitioners for the entire duration of his service ; Petitioners neither issued any notice nor any charge sheet to the respondent, but terminated his service w.e.f. August/15.09.2016. Retrenchment compensation was also not paid to the respondent. Principles of natural justice were also not followed. Respondent also alleged that persons junior to him named in the claim petition had been retained by the petitioners. A person was specifically named in the claim petition who was statedly engaged in respondent’s place without giving the respondent an opportunity of reemployment. Respondent further claimed to have made representations on 24.09.2016 and 03.10.2016 to the petitioners for his re-engagement, but without any success.

Respondent, thus, alleged that petitioners had violated the provisions of Section 25(B)(G) and (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act in short). In addition to above, respondent also pleaded that during his service, he though continued to receive payment from the petitioners, but at times, petitioners prepared vouchers in the name of Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh. Ruwalu Ram, r/o Village Matehri P.O. Gopalpur, Sh. Roop Singh S/o Sh. Ruwalu Ram R/o VPO Gopalpur as also Smt. Bandna Devi W/o Sh. Roop Chand, whereas, the information supplied to the respondent under the Right to Information Act revealed that the aforesaid persons did not even exist. In any case, according to the respondent, the aforesaid persons had never worked under Range Officer Sarkaghat. Respondent pleaded that payment was wrongly shown to have been made to the above persons in order to deprive him of his rights on completion of 240 days’ of continuous service.

3(ii) Petitioners asserted that respondent had been engaged merely as a casual worker for raising and maintaining the nursery in Sarkaghat Forest Range on bill /contract basis. Respondent’s services were not retrenched as he was a casual worker. Petitioners admitted paying the respondent during the years 2013 to 2016 on bill /contract basis. Petitioners denied respondent having completed 240 days work in any calendar year. Petitioners also denied having violated