CWP No. 13664 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.13664 of 2008 Date of decision: 4.8.2008 Joginder Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. C.R. Dahiya, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ashutosh Mohunta, J. (oral) The petitioner has impugned the award (Annexure P-3), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat dated 4th October, 2007, whereby reference has been answered against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the workman had worked from 1998 to March, 2002 and hence his termination is in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Annexure P-4, which is the salary statement for the month of December, 2000, according to which the petitioner has worked in the month of December, 2000, showing that he had worked for a period of 240 days. We have perused the impugned award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat and find that apart from his own oral testimony, the petitioner has not placed any material on record, to substantiate his plea that he has worked for more than 240 days CWP No. 13664 of 2008 2 in the calendar year preceding his termination. On the other hand, MW1 R.S. Arora deposed that the names of employees are entered in the attendance register and wages are paid to them and the name of the petitioner does not find mentioned in the same. It has further been stated by MW1 that the workman had never remained employed with the respondent and there is no relationship of employer and employee between the parties. The workman has failed to prove that he had worked for more than 240 days with the respondent in the calendar year preceding his termination. As far as reliance on Annexure P-4, which is the salary statement, is concerned, this document was never placed on record before the Labour Court by the petitioner, hence no reliance can be placed on the same. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the impugned award. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE August 4, 2008 'rajpal'