IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14183 of 2010 Date of Decision : October 20, 2011. Hawa Singh .....Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Trubunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Amit Rao, Advocate, for Mr.Rahul Deswal, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner-workman is aggrieved by the Award dated 14.2.2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, answering the reference against him. The question referred to the Labour Court for adjudication pertained to the alleged illegal retrenchment of the petitioner. The petitioner's case was that he was appointed as a Beldar-cum-Mali on daily wages in June, 1971 and worked continuously till 1st February, 2004, when his services were illegally terminated without paying any retrenchment compensation or following other mandatory provisions of the Industrial CWP No.14183 of 2010 [2] Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court has rejected the reference after observing that the petitioner has produced no proof of his continuous employment nor he has led any evidence to show that he was appointed against a sanctioned post. Similarly, the petitioner was never employed in consonance with the provisions of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India though he claimed to have served a Government department. When the case was taken up for hearing on 20.8.2010, a Co- ordinate Bench directed the petitioner to place on record the material to show that he had worked for 240 days in a calendar year preceding his alleged retrenchment from employment. Despite four opportunities including the last one with costs, no such material has been brought on record. In absence thereof, the finding of fact returned by the Labour Court on appreciation of material placed before it, calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. 20.10.2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE