Civil Writ Petition No. 14533 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 14533 of 2008 Date of Decision: 4.9.2008 Roop Lal …Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr.Paramjit Singh Goraya, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. The present petition has been filed by Roop Lal-workman whereby he has challenged the impugned Award (Annexure P1) passed by learned Labour Court, Gurdaspur. The petitioner-workman has stated therein that he was taken into service as Chowkidar on 1.8.1996 and his services were terminated on 17.11.1998 due to his trade union activities. The petitioner had served a demand notice dated 23.11.1998 and after the reference was made, he submitted his statement of claim on 25.11.1999. Respondent No.2 Simma Industries, Defence Road, Madhopur, filed a written statement and averred therein that the Civil Writ Petition No. 14533 of 2008 2 petitioner has not rendered continuous service of 240 days in preceding 12 calendar months. Learned Labour Court has held that the workman has failed to prove that he had continuously worked from 1.8.1996 to 17.11.1998. A following finding of fact was recorded by learned Labour Court to hold that the petitioner has not worked for 240 days:- “...No doubt, the workman in his statement has stated that he continuously worked from 1.8.1996 to 17.11.1998 but, he in this regard, has failed to produce and prove any record on the file. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he is not in possession of any appointment or termination order. He has failed to prove on file any payment slip. No other record has been proved by him to prove his continuous service of 240 days in the last 12 Calendar month. Rather, the attendance register was produced by the respondent Sh. Vikram Kohli, from 4/93 to 3/99 but the workman, from the said record also, has failed to prove that he has worked for continuous period of 240 days in the preceding 12 Calendar months. So, in these circumstances, this Court has come to the conclusion that it has not been proved by the workman that he worked for the continuous period of 240 days in the preceding 12 Calendar months”. However, learned Labour Court has awarded Rs.4,000/- as Civil Writ Petition No. 14533 of 2008 3 compensation to the petitioner-workman. We have heard counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to assail the finding of fact recorded by learned Labour Court. The petitioner, who is a daily wager, could not show any material to prove that he had worked for more than 240 days with respondent No.2-Management. Therefore, we are of the view that no interference is called for as the impugned Award passed by learned Labour Court is just and suffers from no infirmity. Hence, we find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. (Hemant Gupta) (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge Judge September 4, 2008 “DK”