IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .

CWP No. 2026/2017 Decided on: 11.03.2026 Kanshi Ram ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents.

…………………………………………………………………………….

Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

Whether approved for rreporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Yudhbir Singh Thakur Mr. Rahul Singh Jagota & Mr.

Ayush Chauhan, Advocate.

For thCe respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

Jyo tsna Rewal Dua, J.

Learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial, Tribunal, Dharamshala, decided the reference against the petitioner vide order dated 10.12.2012. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has instituted this writ petition.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

3. Following reference was sent by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the learned Labour Court-cum-

Industrial Tribunal: -

“Whether verbal termination of the services of Shri Kanshi Ram S/o Shri Shibu Ram daily wage workman by the Divisional Forest Officer, Foret Division Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. w.e.f. May, 2008, without serving charge sheet, without holding enquiry and without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, whereas junior to him have been retained by the above employer, is legal and justified? If not, to what back wages, service benefits and relief the above named workman is entitled to?”

3(i) Petitioner set out in his claim petition that his services were engaged as a daily wage Beldar by the respondent in May, 2001; He served continuously till 31.03.2003; He had worked more than 240 days during the calendar years of his employment; His services were terminated under a verbal order on 31.03.2003;

Petitioner’s termination of service was not in accordance with law, no reasons were assigned for his disengagement and opportunity of hearing was also not afforded to him; He was re-engaged by the respondent as Beldar on 12.02.2008; He worked up to 01.05.2008, whereafter his services were terminated again under an oral order. The petitioner alleged that no reasons were assigned for retrenching his services and no opportunity of hearing was given to him; Persons junior to him named in the claim petition had been retained; Despite availability of work, the petitioner was not reinstated. The petitioner contended that the above action of the respondent was in violation of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

3(ii) The respondents denied having engaged the petitioner as daily waged beldar in May, 2001. According to them, the petitioner was appointed as a casual labourer for the seasonal forestry works in April, 2001; He had worked intermittently till August 2008 and had never completed 240 days of work in any calendar year during his employment. According to the respondents, the petitioner continued to serve intermittently till August, 2008. Subsequently, he did not report for duty and abandoned the job. The respondents denied engaging any persons junior to the petitioner.

3(iii) The parties led their respective evidence. On considering the entire case, the learned Labour Court held the claim petition to be not maintainable and dismissed it, thereby rejecting the reference, giving occasion to the petitioner to institute this writ petition.

4. While dismissing the claim petition, the learned Labour Court took note of the evidence placed on record whereby the respondent had admitted to not giving any notice to the petitioner before terminating his services and having not conducted inquiry against him. The Labour Court also held that the respondents contentions about “petitioner leaving the job of his own accord and free volition in the month of August, 2008 pale into insignificance, since the termination in question (as per reference) has not been impugned on any ground by the petitioner/workman.”

Firstly, in case respondent’s plea of petitioner’s abandoning the job is considered to