Budhi Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 495 HP

HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWP No.2511 of 2013 Decided on: 08.01.2021

.

     Budhi Ram                                                           .............Petitioner
                                               Versus
     State of Himachal Pradesh and another





                                                 ........Respondents

__________________________________________________________ Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Ritta Goswami, Additional Advocate General.

(Through video conferencing)

__________________________________________________________ Ravi Malimath, Judge (Oral).

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.

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

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, representing the respondents-State.

3. Heard learned counsels.

4. In my considered view, no interference in the impugned

award is required. The position held by the petitioner was as a daily wage

worker. The reason assigned by the respondents is that there is no work

for a daily wage employee and if there is no work for a daily wage

employee necessarily the petitioner cannot be engaged. However, in a

situation, where daily wage work arises, then in my considered view, the

petitioner would have to be given preference.

5. Therefore, the present petition is disposed off and the Award

dated 25.02.2013, passed in Reference No.247 of 2012, by Labour Court-

cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, is modified by directing the

respondents-State to offer the status of a daily wage employee to the

petitioner and to grant him work as and when arises. In case no work

arises, then the respondents-State shall have no liability to engage the

petitioner. However, if work arises, the petitioner shall be the first person

who shall be engaged on daily wage basis by the respondents-State.

5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand

.

disposed off.

                                                        (Ravi Malimath)





         January 08, 2021.                                 Judge
          (Yashwant/Himalvi)




                        r             to















                                  .