g- munxmar mm m m 1i,1< Da u 5k. f. a l h , p. $ikaa Bhata‘ 13r@m Nag‘ar,‘ io burg ds and Dmtnc wuxgvnP) / , Thu t . VERSDUS EPO - . Tm r magar bimacge Ban, P.0. SualaJah. ma? D5'trict>'i)urgjvi.£= eput \Gén agatrca Bam wfa Uf‘i’icawecwn ‘awr ,t} {)ppaate? Nt'ru Briugw, iaaraa‘m m a wit, ms't 5m: xn4112, Pawraffiw ‘hamasa ab a , . AHMADwim {Qu rat cen: Gib rnmen‘t i;m str a1 Tina mLaamur Cwurt J bp- A é j ) Jncgnpur amlpur immug: M pmw ‘ ‘ Jb H . ghTIT KW UNDER ARHLLE @ N8TITUnON O INDI " lAXLu O 3ET1HON 3 . t a]: ve m i rbul fra aélux PEYITIONEER k RSNDENTE: v 1 ut k G‘i. my“: gapela, [shila11, p ia() ; 2. Dy eml Mnagaynéiat k, zl ph ”l / i m i [h n / i m t mung offlcar £27 f m P A DL F I ' H CORT OF JUDICATUR HHATTISAR: BILASPUR Singlé Bench: Hon’ble shri Satish K. mihotri, J. W. P. No. 4578 OF 1996 Shri H.B. Agrawal, senior counsel with Shn' Pankaj EAgxawal, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anand Shukla, counsel for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (14th June, zoos) 1 i. This petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails th’e order dated 16.2.1996 (Annexure P-21) passed by the Centrai Government Industrial Tribunal —cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur, in reference case No. CGIT/LC (R) (56) 1990, wherein the Tribunal after having considered the statement made by the Branch Manager and the certificates produced by the petitioner, held that the petitioner/workman has failed to establish that he had"worked for 240 days continuously in the preceding year and answered the reference in favour of/the management. 2. The brief facts in nutshell are that the petitioner was appointed as temporary attender in’ the Syndicate Bank at Supela Branch on 2.12.1985. The service of the petitioner was required in‘absence of other regular attender from time to time. The services of the N i HIGE U E CGH Petitioner : A. K. Das Versus Respondents : The Manager, Syndicate Bank 8n others. petitioner came to an end on 28.2.1987 by oral order made by the Branch Manager. The petitioner has produced oertiticates indicating that he has worked for 45 days and 59 days. One Shri S. Manju Nath, Branch Manager was examined and he has categorically stated that the petitioner/workman had worked from 3.11.1986 to 17.12.1986 for 45 days and thereafter, from 1.1 .1987 to 28.2.1987 for 59.days. it was further stated that the petitioner has not worked for more than 240 days, but had worked less than 240 days in a calendar year. The petitioner had not examined any witness in support of his case and had further not produced any other documents, except the certificates, which indicate the working of 45 and 59 days in 2 years, before the Labour Court. l Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the ‘ records, l do not find any infirmity or illegality in the findings recorded by the Labour Court. Finding is based on sufficient evidence and there is proper application of law. Hence, no interference with the impugned order is called for. For the reasons stated above, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ‘ SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI Judge Sdl-