CWP No. 17845 of 2001 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17845 of 2001 (O&M) Decided on : 22-03-2011 Randhir Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- None for the petitioner Mr. Vijay Kumar Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab MAHESH GROVER, J The instant petition has been filed impugning the award of the Labour Tribunal, Ludhiana dated 4.9.2009. The petitioner alongwith other workmen claiming themselves to be the workmen and employed with the respondents on daily wages claimed a reference to the following effect:- “Whether termination of services of Randhir Singh workman is justified and in order. If not to what relief is he entitled to.” The said question was referred to the Tribunal for determination. According to the statement of claim, the petitioner pleaded that he is a daily wage worker who has been working with the respondents for the following periods:- 1987-88 156 days 1988-89 107 days He set up a plea that his services have been wrongly terminated without compliance of provisions of Section 25F of the Act. In short the CWP No. 17845 of 2001 (O&M) 2 plea of the petitioner was that he has been working with the respondents for last 8 years on a fixed salary of Rs.934/- and in each calendar year, he had completed 240 days and that his services had been wrongly terminated. He has further stated that the holidays such as Saturdays and Sundays are to be included while calculating the period of 240 days. The respondents took up a plea that the petitioner had worked only on daily wages intermittently and not completed 240 days in any calendar year. According to respondents the petitioner had worked on daily wages for 156 days in year 1987-88 and 107 days in year 1988-89 and therefore had not completed 240 days in the year preceding his termination. It was further pleaded that the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable to the case of the petitioner. They denied that the petitioner had put in more than 8 years of service. The facts of the case reveal that the reference was claimed by the petitioner as well as nine other workmen which references were consolidated and answered by one award which has been impugned herein by the petitioner Randhir Singh. The Tribunal answered the reference against the petitioner by holding that he had not completed 240 days in any calendar year and that holidays such as Saturdays, Sundays could not be counted for computing period of 240 days. This has resulted in the filing of the instant writ petition. On perusal of the impugned award I find that there is no dispute regarding the status of the petitioner being employed as daily wager. The question that is to be seen is that whether he has completed 240 days in the year preceding his termination. The onus to prove this was on the petitioner who failed to discharge the same. His plea was that Saturdays CWP No. 17845 of 2001 (O&M) 3 and Sundays should have been included for the purpose of counting the period of 240 days. The testimony of Sh.Surain Singh, MW1 is categoric to this effect that the petitioner was engaged on day to day basis only for the days on which actual work was done and he was never paid for Saturdays and Sundays and other holidays. The petitioner could not produce any evidence to the contrary from where it could be inferred that he was paid for the holidays as had been claimed by him. That being a situation the matter is squarely covered by the decision of Full Bench of this Court rendered in CWP no. 15278 of2000 titled as Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1, Panipat versus Sanjay Rana and another decided on 3.12.2010 wherein it has been specifically held that a daily wager may be entitled to a rest day but unless and until he is paid for the said day, it cannot be counted towards computation of 240 days of continuous service to get benefit under the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. Accordingly, the petition is held to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. March 22, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge