Letters Patent Appeal No.347 of 2011 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No.347 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 10.5.2011 Mehar Chand ...Appellant Versus Presiding Officer and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the workman against the order of learned Single Judge dated 13.5.2010 dismissing the writ petition and upholding the award of the Labour Court. 2. The workman raised an industrial dispute alleging that he was orally recruited as Pump Operator by the Public Health Department of the State of Haryana on 1.3.1993 and his services were terminated on 30.10.1994 without payment of retrenchment compensation. 3. After appreciating the evidence led by the workman, it was held that workman failed to prove that he had rendered service of more than 240 days attracting the requirement of retrenchment Letters Patent Appeal No.347 of 2011 -2- **** compensation being paid. The workman failed to produce any appointment letter, wage slip and muster roll etc. The nature of the employment was on daily wages basis subject to availability of work. In such circumstances, the termination of the services of the workman could not be held to be illegal. Reliance was also placed on judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and others (2006) 4 SCC 1, Post Master General Kolkata and others Vs. Tutu Dass (Dutta) 2007 (5) Supreme Court Cases 317 and Principal, Mehar Chand Polytechnic etc. Vs. Anu Lamba etc., 2006 (7) SCC 161. 4. The writ petition having filed before this Court, learned Single Judge upheld the award with the following observation:- “The onus to prove is on the workman that he had completed more than 240 days in service in 12 preceding month's from the date of his termination. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments that mere bald statement or affidavit of the workman would not be enough to prove that he had as a matter of fact, completed more than 240 days in service in 12 preceding month's from the date of his termination so that he can claim benefit under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the present case, no documentary evidence has been placed on record by the petitioner which would prove his contention that he had worked with the respondent-Management from 1.3.1993 to 30.101994. Letters Patent Appeal No.347 of 2011 -3- **** No efforts were made by the petitioner for summoning the records of the respondent-department. In the absence of the documentary evidence with the court, the court has rightly observed that the workman has failed to prove that he had completed 240 days in service with the respondents in 12 preceding months' from the date of his alleged termination. The findings recorded by the Labour Court are in accordance with law which do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.” 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the management failed to lead evidence, the case of the workman should have been accepted that he had completed more than 240 days of service. Mere fact that the workman could not produce letter of appointment, wage slip and the muster roll was not enough to non suit him as evidence of co-workers was led which should have been accepted. 7. We are unable to accept the submission. 8. The burden of proving the rendering of more than 240 days service was on the workman. The workman could have summoned the record and could have produced his own wage slip. In absence thereof, mere statements of co-workers were not found to be conclusive. The Labour Court and learned Single Judge have concurrently recorded a finding of fact after appreciating the Letters Patent Appeal No.347 of 2011 -4- **** evidence. The post on which the workman claimed to have worked is a public post to which appointment has to be made in consonance with the Article 16 of the Constitution of India by advertisement and providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons in absence of which claim for reinstatement could not be upheld. 9. In view of above, no ground to interfere with the impugned order is made out. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice May 10, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge