IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 7931 of 2011. [O&M] Date of Decision: 14th November, 2011. Krishan Kumar Petitioner through Mr. P.K.Sharma, Advocate Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Anr. Respondents through Mr. R.L.Gupta, Addl.AG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner is aggrieved by the award dated 31.01.2011 [Annexure P-2] passed by the Labour Court, Patiala whereby the reference 'whether the termination of services of the workman was justified or not', has been answered against him primarily on the ground that he was engaged as a daily-wager only and has failed to prove that he worked for 240 days. The aggrieved workman has approached this Court. The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit maintaining that the petitioner – workman never completed 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of his termination, nor any person junior to him has been retained. The solitary question before the Labour Court was whether or not the petitioner worked as Beldar from 01.07.1996 to 25.06.1997? It stands proved from Ex.M1 to Ex.M12 that the petitioner was paid wages from July, 1996 till January, 1997. The workman has further proved photo copies of the Attendance Register which indicate his employment for a subsequent period also though the said evidence was discarded by the Labour Court as it failed to inspire confidence. The material on record does suggest that the petitioner admittedly worked for more than 210 days and if the benefit of Attendance Register is extended, it appears that he had completed 240 days. The benefit of Sundays and other Gazetted holidays can also be granted to him. However, even if the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days, would he be entitled for re-instatement in service? In my considered view, merely on engagement as a daily-wager way back in the year 1996-97, the petitioner can not claim re-instatement in service though a direction for his fresh engagement as a daily wager can be issued. The resultant effect would be that the petitioner will not be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service or the back- wages. However, in totality of the facts and circumstances, the impugned award is modified to the extent that the respondent Department is directed to employ the petitioner afresh as a daily- wager Beldar. Let the needful be done within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Disposed of. Dasti. November 14, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE