Civil Writ Petition No.6603 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 15.10.2008 Paramjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present:- Mr.R.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sandeep Moudgil, D.A.G. Punjab. 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? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the award (Annexure P4) dated 7.6.2006, whereby the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner in respect of his termination vide order dated 15.3.1995, was declined. The sole argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent-Management had more than 100 employees, therefore, Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”) would be applicable in respect of the retrenchment of the workman. The termination has been effected in terms of Chapter V-A of the Act, therefore, the termination of the petitioner is illegal and void. Learned Labour Court has found that there is no pleading to the effect that there are more than 100 employees with the respondent-Management. It has been further found that no material has been placed on record to prove that the strength of the Civil Writ Petition No.6603 of 2007 2 establishment where the workmen were working is more than 100 employees. It is admitted by the counsel for the petitioner that there is no pleading in the statement of claim to the effect that there were more than 100 employees working with the respondent-Management. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the statement of Parveen Kumar MW1. He has deposed in his cross-examination that he cannot say if the strength was more than 100 employees in the establishment. However, subsequently he has stated that the total strength of employees was less than 200. On the basis of such statement, it is sought to be argued that respondent-Management had more than 100 employees. The onus to prove that there were more than 100 workmen in the establishment of the respondent-Management was on the petitioner. Neither he has raised any pleading to this effect nor led any evidence. One question in the cross-examination of Parveen Kumar MW1, which is not categorical, cannot be read to infer that the respondent-Management had more than 100 workmen on the relevant date. In view of above, we do not find that there is any illegality or irregularity in the order warranting interference in the writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 15.10.2008 (NAWAB SINGH) AS JUDGE