RAJEEV Vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, ROHRU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is maintained by the petitioner under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 22.04.2016, passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, (hereinafter to be called as ("the Tribunal") in claim petition Reference No. 32 of 2015, wherein the application of the petitioner, under Sec. 11, sub-Section (3), clause (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, read with Order 11, Rules 12 & 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be called as "the Code") was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stating facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was engaged by the Forest Department in Bashla Range of Forest Division Rohru, on muster roll basis in the year Jan., 2009. The work assigned to him was of a nature i.e., growing of nursery, plantation, looking after of nursery plants, protection of forest from fire, seized timber watching, etc. The petitioner worked for 285 days during the year 2009, though the petitioner was engaged irregularly, but he was not permitted to complete his 240 days in a calendar year, in order to defeat his claim for continuous service or regularization. On April, 2011, he was engaged casually on bill/payment basis, besides him there are some other persons also, who were engaged casually on payment/bill basis and no record of such persons work is being maintained by the respondents. So as to evade petitioner from completing 240 days in a calendar year, no proper record of his work is being maintained by the respondents. Thus, the petitioner maintained an application No. 37 of 2016, which was dismissed, vide order dated 204.2016. Hence the present petition.

(3.) By filing reply, respondents resisted and contested the claim of the petitioner, wherein preliminary objection qua maintainability was taken. On merits, it was averred in the reply that the petitioner willingly worked with the Department on bill/payment basis and he never represented nor objected the same. The present petition was filed by the petitioner only to create harassment, hence the same deserves to be dismissed.