IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.18662 of 2006 Date of Decision:- 12.03.2010 Naresh Kumar ....Petitioner(s) vs. The State of Haryana and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.John Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Addl.A.G., Haryana, for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of Award dated 25.5.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Panipat whereby the reference has been answered against the petitioner-workman holding that he had not worked continuously for 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed as Mali-cum-Chowkidar with respondent No.2 on 1.2.1995 and he continued to work as such till 30.6.1996 when his services were terminated without giving him any notice or pay in lieu of notice or compensation. He contends that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act) have been violated and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. C.W.P.No.18662 of 2006 -2- On the other hand, counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioner-workman had admittedly worked with the respondent- Management from 1.2.1995 to 30.6.1995 but during this period, he had worked only for 150 days including the rest days. He contends that on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the Labour Court has proceeded to decide the case. The relevant pay bills were produced before the Labour Court as Exhibits M1 to M5 in support of this contention. On the basis of this, the Labour Court has come to a definitive conclusion that the workman had not completed 240 days of service in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. His further contention is that no documentary evidence was produced by the workman or was summoned before the Labour Court in support of the contentions which were made by him in his claim statement. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. On the basis of the pay bills from February, 1995 to June 1995, Exhibits M-1 to M-5, produced before the Labour Court by the Management, the Labour Court has come to a conclusion that the petitioner- workman has not completed 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. The onus to prove that the workman had completed the required period as mandated under Section 25-B of the Act to claim benefit under Section 25-F of the said Act was on the workman himself. Although he had appeared as a witness before the Labour Court and had made his statement yet no documentary evidence was produced by him in support thereof before the Labour Court. No application or request was made by the petitioner-workman to the Labour Court for production of the C.W.P.No.18662 of 2006 -3- records for the period he had worked with the respondent-Management. The onus having not been discharged by the workman himself, the findings as recorded by the Labour Court cannot be said to be without any basis, especially when the same is based on the pay bills which were produced by the Management pertaining to the relevant period i.e. February 1995 to June 1995. That being so, the findings as recorded by the Labour Court cannot be said to be without any basis or contrary to the evidence led by the parties. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. March 12, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE