IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 6242 of 2009. Date of Decision : April 27, 2009. Anil Kumar and others. ....... Petitioners. Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana, and another. ....... Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Sharwan Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioners. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 30.11.2006, passed by the Labour Court, Ludhiana, wherein the reference has been answered against the workmen, holding therein that the workmen had failed to prove that they have completed more than 240 days and the evidence led by the respondents show that indeed they have worked for less than 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of their alleged termination as per their own assertions. Counsel for the petitioners contends that as per the evidence led by the parties and supplied by the Management, it is apparent that the date of termination of the workmen as asserted by the Management is 31.03.1998 and when they continue to work with the Management. He contends that if the said date of termination as has been alleged by the Management is taken into consideration, the workmen have completed more than 240 days. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case as well as the impugned award. C.W.P. No. 6242 of 2009. The law as settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Haryana Urban Development Authority Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Gurgaon, 2001 (3) S.C.T. 937 (P/H) and Dhani Ram and others Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad and others, 2006 (3) P.L.R. 406, the date of termination is to be taken as has been stated by the workman in the claim petitions itself. The Labour Court cannot go beyond the reference and, therefore, the date as claimed to be the termination date by the workmen has to be taken as the date of termination and from that date 12 months prior has to be taken into consideration for counting 240 days so as to bring the service of the workman within Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court has in para-12 taken the date of termination which has been given by the petitioners themselves in their claim petitions and on taking 12 preceding months into consideration have come to a conclusion that none of the petitioners have completed more than 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of their termination. Counsel for the petitioners is unable to rebut the said findings as recorded by the Labour Court. That being the position, the findings as recorded by the Labour Court, are based on the evidence produced by the parties, and therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE April 27, 2009. sjks. Whether referred to the Reporter : Yes / No. -2-