CWP No.13145 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.13145 of 2008 Date of Decision:10.09.2009 Lal Chand .....Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, and another ...Respondents Present: Mr. Ravi Kant, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Amrit Paul, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition challenges the rejection of the reference sought at the instance of the workman that he had been illegally terminated from service on 01.10.2003. The Labour Court did so on its finding that the workman had not established his continuous service for a period fo 240 days in the year preceding the order of termination. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, more than assailing the award of the Labour Court, wanted to adduce additional evidence before this Court as proof of his having served with the respondent-management for a period of 240 days. The reliance was CWP No.13145 of 2008 -2- on a certificate which had been isued by the Secretary of the management which, however, does not still set out the actual number of days of service or that he had been in continuous service during the relevant period. Yet another document was a settlement that had been worked out between the workman and the management in the year 1990 when he was offered an employment as Conductor on 15.01.1990 more than affording evidence that he had been reinducted in service on 15.01.1990, it does not show what the law requires to be established in order that a workman complains that there had been a violation of the statutory mandate under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the termination was bad. Both the documents do not establish what the Labour Corut found to be deficient in the workman's case. 2. The inevitable consequence would be to confirm the award of the Labour Court and that there is no scope for interference in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. ( K. KANNAN ) JUDGE September 10, 2009 ashish