IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.3454 of 2011 Date of decision : 25.2.2011 Smt. Krishna Devi ....Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Gurgaon and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Ashok Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner impugns the order dated 8.10.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon. A reference was claimed by the petitioner under Section 10 (1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). She pleaded that the termination was in violation of the provisions of the Act, in particular Section 25-F. The respondents denied that the petitioner was a workman and also stated that her appointment was not in accordance with rules and placed reliance on Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi (3) and others (2006) 4 SSC 1. while making averments to that effect in the reply to the demand notice. The Tribunal found that the petitioner was C.W.P.No.3454 of 2011 -2- working merely on daily wage basis and that her appointment was not in accordance with rules and also that the petitioner has failed to establish that she had completed 240 days in the year preceding to the termination. The reference was thus declined. In the instant writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner contended on the basis of the Supreme Court judgment in Anoop Sharma v. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1, Panipat, Haryana, 2010 (3) RSJ 602 that the petitioner's services could not be terminated without compliance of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act and, thus, the impugned award deserves to be set aside. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the impugned award. To a pointed question as to whether the petitioner had any material to show that she had completed 240 days in the year preceding to the termination, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the record upto 2000 was produced and respondent No.2 deliberately did not produce any further record. To another question as to whether any application was made by the petitioner to summon the requisite record, the answer of the learned counsel for the petitioner was in the negative. It is settled principle of law that it is the workman who has to prove his case. The onus to prove that he has completed 240 days in the year preceding to the termination lies squarely on the workman if he has to avail the provisions of the Act. There being no material before the Tribunal and there being no attempt by the petitioner to get C.W.P.No.3454 of 2011 -3- the record from respondent No.2, I am of the opinion that no infirmity can be found in the award of the Tribunal. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that she had worked for 240 days in the year preceding the termination and thus the question of travelling to the next question regarding the appointment being in accordance with law does not arise. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is dismissed. 25.2.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss