IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.8112 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 16.02.2010 Joga Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.R.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Monica Chhibbar Sharma, DAG, Punjab. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the Award dated 19.11.2008 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur vide which the reference made on the demand raised by the petitioner- workman stands answered against him, holding that the order terminating his services was justified and in order and he is not entitled to any relief or benefits. Counsel for the petitioner-workman submits that the relevant record was in the custody of the Management which it was required to produce before the Labour Court, but the same was not produced by the Management. His contention is that in his statement before the Labour Court, the workman had himself stated that he had worked as Beldar from 15.8.1993 to 31.8.1994. This stand of the petitioner-workman was supported by WW-1 Gurdit Singh son of Sunder Singh who too had also worked with the petitioner in Panj Graian, District Gurdaspur. This witness had also stated that the workman-Joga Singh had worked with the C.W.P.No.8112 of 2009 -2- respondents from 15.8.1993 to 31.8.1994. He, on this basis, submits that due to non-production of the relevant records by the Management, the workman could not by way of documentary evidence prove that he had completed more than 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months whereas the oral statements of the workmen Joga Singh as also that of Gurdit Singh proved that he had worked continuously for a period of more than 240 days with the respondents. He, on this basis, submits that the Award deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that onus to prove the assertion made by the petitioner-workman on the basis of the record which was available with the Management was on the petitioner- workman. The workman was required to summon the relevant record which he had failed to do before the Labour Court and, therefore, the non- production of the records by the Management cannot be treated as a ground to draw an adverse inference against the Management. Had a request to that effect been made by the petitioner-workman and even then, the records were not produced as were summoned, the contention as raised by the counsel for the petitioner could have been different. The findings as recorded by the Labour Court are fully justified and, therefore, no interference by this Court is called for. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. It is by now a settled position in law that the onus to prove the assertion that the workman had completed more than 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination, is on the workman as has been asserted by him. The documentary evidence, although C.W.P.No.8112 of 2009 -3- being available with the Management, can be summoned on a request made by the workman. Unfortunately, the workman had failed to move an appropriate application before the Labour Court for production of the relevant record on which he intended to rely upon to prove that he had completed more than 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months. It is true that as per the statement made by the workman-Joga Singh, who had appeared as WW-3 before the Labour Court, as also the statement of Gurdit Singh WW-1, do indicate that the petitioner-workman had performed his duties as a Beldar with the respondents from 15.8.1993 to 31.8.1994 at Panj Graian, District Gurdaspur. Unfortunately, the witness summoned by the petitioner-workman who is an official to prove his claim that he had worked at Panj Graian i.e. Sukhdev Singh SDC Sathiali UBDC, appeared as WW2 and made a statement that the petitioner-workman had never worked at Panj Graian. The records which were produced by him also did not support the claim of the workman. The Labour Court has thus relying on the evidence on the record proceeded to return a finding against the workman which cannot be faulted with. The findings as recorded by the Labour Court on the basis of the evidence produced by the respondents, cannot be said to be without any basis or incorrect. There is no illegality or irregularity committed by the Labour Court while passing the impugned Award. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. February 16, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE