IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 17238 of 2009. Date of Decision : March 15, 2010. Tarsem Kumar, s/o Sh. Dharam Pal r/o Village Boh, Tehsil and District Ambala. ...... Petitioner . Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, and others ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. J.S. Cooner, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl. A.G. Haryana, for respondents. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the Award dated 21.08.2008 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Labour Court, Ambala, (hereinafter referred to as “the Labour Court”), vide which the reference had been answered against the petitioner/Workman (hereinafter referred to as “the Workman”), holding therein that the Workman has failed to prove that he had completed 240 days in service with respondents/Management (hereinafter referred to as “the Management”) from the date of his alleged termination. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that WW- 1/Workman himself, WW-2 Gurdial Singh s/o Sh. Bant Ram, and WW-3 Tej Ram s/o Sh. Munshi Ram had categorically in one tone stated that the Workman had worked with the Management from January, 2000, to June, 2004, and thereafter, he had worked till September, 2004, but no wages were paid to him for the said period. He contends that the Management did not C.W.P. No. 17238 of 2009. -2- produce any record in support of contention that the Workman had not worked with it and, therefore, the findings as recorded by the Labour Court, cannot be sustained as the document, which is log book for the relevant period, was put to the Management Witness in his cross-examination, who had simply stated that he does not know about the said document as he was not posted at that place at the relevant time. He on this basis contends that the Award deserves to be set aside and the Workman be granted the benefit of reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. On the other hand, counsel for the Management submits that the categoric stand of the Management before the Labour Court was that the Workman had not worked with it at all. No muster rolls were issued from January, 2000, to June, 2004, so there was no question of Workman having worked with the Management. He further contends that the Management Witness Mr. M.R. Gandhi (MW-1), had categorically stated before the Labour Court on oath on the basis of the records that the Management had never engaged/employed the Workman on work nor had it ever paid any wages to him. He further contends that the onus was on the Workman to support his claim by way of documentary evidence, which he failed to do before the Labour Court. The Workman also did not move any application for summoning of the records, which he had put to the Management Witness in his cross examination and the same was denied by the Management Witness. He, therefore, contends that the onus having not been discharged by the Workman, the findings as recorded by the Labour Court, does not call for interference by this Court and the Award is in accordance with law. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. C.W.P. No. 17238 of 2009. -3- The position, which culls out from the arguments raised by counsel for the parties as also the records is that the onus to prove that the Workman had worked with the Management for the period he has alleged, i.e., from January, 2000, to September, 2004, was on the Workman. Moreso, for the period, i.e., 12 preceding months prior to date of his alleged termination, he was required to prove that he had completed 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months, for proving that the Workman could have relied upon oral as well as documentary evidence. Unfortunately, the Workman had chosen not to summon the records from the Management in support of his contention. The document, which were put to the Management Witness by him, were not admitted, but the witness had denied the same on the ground that he had not worked at the station at the relevant time nor could he say anything about the said documents. That apart, MW-1/Mr. M.R. Gandhi had categorically stated on oath before the Labour Court that the Workman was never engaged/employed by the Management on any of the works and was not ever paid any wages. A specific stand of the Management in their written statement before the Labour Court was that no muster rolls were issued from January, 2000, to June, 2004, for which period the Workman stated that he had worked with the Management and had been paid wages for the same. Nothing has been brought on record by the Workman showing that he had either worked or have not been paid the salary from July, 2004, to September, 2004, as has been alleged by him. Two Witnesses, i.e., WW-2/Gurdial Singh and WW-3/Tej Ram also in their cross-examination had specifically stated that they are not aware of the date of appointment and the date of his termination of the Workman. That being so, the onus having not been discharged by the Workman by summoning the relevant records from the Management to prove his assertion that he had worked with it and in view of C.W.P. No. 17238 of 2009. -4- the categoric stand of the Management that he had not worked with it, the findings as recorded by the Labour Court cannot be faulted with. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 15, 2010. sjks.