The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the petition challenging the Labour Court's decision that the petitioner was not a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act due to insufficient service days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No. 103 of 2004
Date of decision: 14.12.2010.
Lekh Raj …Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. and others
…Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar Sud, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. No. 1 to 3.
Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral)
1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes.
2
August, 1988 to July, 1989 is taken into consideration then also the petitioner has not completed 240 days. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly rejected. No
order as to costs.
14th December, 2010 ™
(Deepak Gupta) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Whether the petitioner had worked for 240 days in a calendar year or previous 12 months.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Lekh Raj
State of H.P.
Deepak Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
