CWP No. 8752 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 8752 of 2010 Date of decision: 13.05.2010 Mehar Chand son of Sh. Ram Singh ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Gurgaon and others ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the Award dated 07.09.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court-II, Gurgaon, vide which the reference has been answered against the petitioner-workman holding therein that the petitioner has not been able to prove that he had completed more than 240 days in service in 12 preceding months' from the date of his termination. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent- department was proceeded against ex-parte and they chose not to contest CWP No. 8752 of 2010 2 the claim of the petitioner. In support of the claim made by the workman before the Labour Court, five witnesses including the petitioner appeared before the Labour Court. They had come forth and supported the claim of the petitioner but the claim of the petitioner has been rejected merely on the ground that no documentary evidence has been produced by the petitioner in support of his contention that he was appointed by the respondent-department on 01.03.1993 and he worked up to 30.10.1994. He contends that PW-2 Gopal Krishan Arora had appeared and he had proved the letter Ex. P2/1, wherein it was mentioned that the concerned service record of the petitioner was being searched. He, on this basis, contends that when the record was not available with the respondent- department, there was no question of its production and thus the findings recorded by the Labour Court cannot be sustained. The petitioner thus deserves to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits and the Court should have taken into consideration the oral evidence which has been produced before the Labour Court in support of his claim. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. The onus to prove is on the workman that he had completed more than 240 days in service in 12 preceding months' from the date of his termination. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments that mere bald statement or affidavit of the workman would not be enough to prove that he had, as a matter of fact, completed more than 240 days in service in 12 preceding months' from the date of his termination so that he can claim benefit under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the present case, no documentary evidence has been placed on record by the petitioner which would prove his contention that he CWP No. 8752 of 2010 3 had worked with the respondent-Management from 01.03.1993 to 30.10.1994. No efforts were made by the petitioner for summoning the records of the respondent-department. In the absence of the documentary evidence with the Court, the Court has rightly observed that the workman has failed to prove that he had completed 240 days in service with the respondents in 12 preceding months' from the date of his alleged termination. The findings recorded by the Labour Court are in accordance with law which do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE May 13, 2010 pj