CWP No. 174 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 174 of 2010 Date of decision: 08.01.2010 Krishna w/o Tara Chand d/o Sh. Arjun Singh ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Sector Superintendent, Sector-2, State Cattle Breeding Project, Sirsa Road, Hisar and others ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. T.C.Dhanwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 27.10.2008 (Annexure P-13) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, vide which the reference made to the Court stands decided against the worklady-petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner contends that there were specific allegations made by the petitioner against the respondents that with a mala-fide intention and resorting to unfair labour practice, the petitioner has not been allowed to complete 240 days in a calendar year. For doing this, CWP No. 174 of 2010 2 the respondents have resorted to changing the name of the worklady although she had received the salary and put her thumb-mark on the receipt and documents. He contends that persons junior to the petitioner are still working and, therefore, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with while terminating the services of the petitioner. He has challenged the report of the Finger Print Expert given by the Finger Print Bureau, Haryana, Police Complex, Mandhuban on the ground that the thumb impression of the petitioner was not matched with that on the records by enlarging the same. On this basis, he submits that the report of the Finger Print Expert cannot be relied upon to come to a conclusion that the petitioner had not performed her duties although her name has been changed on the records to deprive her of the benefit of the Industrial Disputes Act. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. The contention as raised by the counsel for the petitioner has been duly appreciated by the learned Labour Court. It has come on record that for the relevant period i.e. one year prior to the date of termination, the report of the Finger Print Expert from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban clearly gives a finding that the thumb impression of the petitioner does not match with the thumb impression on the records sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The statement of the Finger Print Expert Ram Singh, Incharge, Finger Print Bureau, Madhuban (Karnal) WW-2 has been placed on record as Annexure P-8. A perusal of the cross- examination of the witnesses clearly indicates that the Finger Print Expert had compared the thumb impression by enlarging the same. The opinion, which has been given by the Finger Print Expert, therefore, cannot be said CWP No. 174 of 2010 3 to be not correct. The reason, which has been put forth by the counsel for the petitioner to challenge the said report, also does not exist. The opinion of the Finger Print Expert clearly establishes that the petitioner had not worked with the respondents-Management continuously and, therefore, had not completed more than 240 days in the 12 calendar months before the date of termination. As a matter of fact, as has come in the evidence of the witnesses, the worklady-petitioner had only worked for 175 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of her termination. No documents have been placed on record before the learned trial Court to substantiate the contention with regard to the juniors being retained in service by the Management. In any case, the worklady having not completed more than 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of her termination, does not fall within the ambit of protection provided under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. That apart, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis and not on a sanctioned post. Her appointment was not in accordance with the provisions for selection of regular candidates according to the procedure prescribed for making appointment on a public post. The claim of the petitioner for reinstatement in service thus cannot be accepted. The award passed by the Labour Court (impugned herein) dated 27.10.2008 (Annexure P-13) is in accordance with law and on proper appreciation of the evidence, which has been brought on record and thus calls for no interference by this Court. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE January 08, 2010 pj