IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 1582 of 2008. Date of Decision : May 01, 2009. M/S Baba Kharag Singh – Baba Darshan Singh I.T.I. (Women), Chatiwind Gate, Amritsar. ....... Petitioner. Versus. Shri Happy Gupta c/o The Amritsar General Labour Union (Regd.) Ekta Bhawan, Putilighar Amritsar, resident of 3312/26, Gali No. 1, Court Ralia Ram, Sultanpurwind Gate, Amritsar, and another. ....... Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Gagan Pardeep S. Bal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Tanu Bedi, Advocate, for the respondent No. 1. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 30.07.2007 (Annexure-P-5), passed by the Labour Court, Amritsar, vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman holding him entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and 30% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 30.04.2002. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the findings as recorded by the Labour Court are not based on the pleadings and evidence led by the parties. He contends that since the findings are vitiated for the reason that they are contrary to the records, the award impugned herein, deserves to be set aside. C.W.P. No. 1582 of 2008. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submits that the findings as recorded by the Labour Court, are based on the documentary evidence which the workman has produced. The Management has failed to rebut the pleadings and the evidence led by the workman. Even the witness who appeared before the Labour Court had categorically stated that he has no documents to substantiate the contentions raised by the Management in its reply with regard to appointment being on contract basis. The contention raised was that the workman has left the job voluntarily but there again the Management failed to produce any documentary evidence and even M.W.1- Shri Gurpal Singh who appeared before the Labour Court, had categorically admitted that he was not personally aware of the factual position and he further admitted that he had not seen the documents on the basis of which he could have made the statement to that effect. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case as well as the impugned award. The onus to prove the assertions as made by the Management, was on the Management itself. As conceded by the M.W.1 - Gupral Singh, no documentary evidence was available with him nor was it produced before the Labour Court to substantiate their contentions. The contentions which were made by the Management, were required to be proved by documents as the Institute is not expected to work on oral instructions or oral directions. On the other hand, the workman has been able to prove that he had worked with the Management for 4 ½ years continuously at a salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month. This position could not be rebutted and has not been rebutted by the Management. There is a categoric finding on the basis of the records and assertions made by the workman that indeed he has put in more -2- C.W.P. No. 1582 of 2008. than 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. It has also come on record that the provisions as contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, have not been complied with. That being so, the termination of the services of the workman, being violative of the Industrial Disputes Act, would fall within the definition of retrenchment and, therefore, not valid. Findings having been recorded by the Labour Court being based on the evidence and the pleadings of the parties, is fully justified. The relief also as has been granted by the Labour Court is based upon the factual position as has been culled out from the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, calling for no intervention by this Court. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE May 01, 2009. sjks. Whether referred to the Reporter - Yes / No. -3-