AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi Malimath, J
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.
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.
Heard learned counsels.
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.
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.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.