Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. - (1.) Whether petitioner was engaged only on bill basis, for a period from May 2008 to August 2008, as a stop-gap arrangement, during leave period of regular driver of respondents-department and had not completed 180 days (Tribal area) of service & therefore was not entitled for reliefs prayed by him, is the question involved in the instant writ petition. Reference having been answered against the petitioner, instant writ petition has been preferred by him.
(2.) The factual position of the case:- 2(i) The case of the petitioner is that; he was engaged as driver on daily wage basis by the respondents from 1.02.2008 till 31.12.2009; he had completed continuous working for 240 days, when his services were orally terminated; oral termination of his service was without compliance to provisions of Sections 25(G), 25(H) and 25(N) of Industrial Disputes Act.2(ii) In respect of above dispute, following reference was sent by the competent authority to the learned Presiding Judge, H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, for adjudication:-"Whether the termination of services as Driver of Shri Parkash Chand S/o Shri Punnu Ram, R/o Village Randoul, P.O. Tatapani, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P., by the Divisional Forest Officer Division, Kinnaur at Reckong-Peo, District Kinnaur, H.P. w.e.f. December, 2009 without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,is legal and justified? If not, to what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above ex-driver is entitled to from the above employer?"2(iii) Petitioner filed the claim petition on the basis of above factual position seeking relief of re-instatement w.e.f. 31.12.2009 with full back-wages, seniority and other consequential service benefits.2(iv) Stand of the respondents-State to the claim was:a) Petitioner was not engaged on daily-wage basis.b) Regular driver, namely, Sh. Jai Singh, working in the office of DFO Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur, had proceeded on long leave. During his absence, the petitioner was engaged as driver on bill basis. No appointment letter was issued to the petitioner, in fact such engagement was purely a stop-gap arrangement.c) Since, the engagement of the petitioner was during the leave period of the regular driver, Sh. Jai Singh, as stop-gap arrangement and on bill basis, therefore, neither the services of the petitioner were terminated nor he was retrenched.d) Petitioner had worked only on bill basis and that too w.e.f. 2.5.2008 to 31.08.2008 and not from 1.02.2008 till 31.12.2009, as projected by the petitioner.e) It was further submitted in the reply that in Mark PX, inadvertently the period of engagement of the petitioner was shown as 1.02.2008 till 31.12.2009. But this was without verifying the record. After verifying man-days chart of the petitioner, it was found that he had worked on bill basis only from 2.05.2008 to 31.08.2008 and as such he had not completed 180/240 days in calender year, therefore, provisions of Section 25(N) of Industrial Disputes Act, were not attracted.
(3.) The parties led oral as well as documentary evidence. After considering the entire record as well as the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal below vide impugned award dated 12.4.2018, dismissed the petitioner's claim by answering the reference in favour of respondents-State. Feeling aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.;