CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16610 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 Satish Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, Gurgaon and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The workman-petitioner, who was serving as Mali-cum- Daftri, has filed the present petition to challenge the award passed by Labour Court, declining the reference of dispute regarding his removal from service. The petitioner was employed on 20.6.1996 and claims to have worked till 18.1.2002, when his services were dispensed with. As per the petitioner, he had worked for more than 240 days, when his services were dispensed with without issuing any show cause notice or holding any enquiry. He accordingly sought reference of his CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16610 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: dispute to Labour Court seeking reinstatement with full back wages. In the written statement filed, the respondents would state that the petitioner was employed on muster roll w.e.f. 1.1.2002 and worked till 15.1.2002. He filed a writ petition seeking regularisation of his service and upon receipt of direction from this Court, his claim for regularisation was considered and was rejected. It is further disclosed that the petitioner had worked with the respondents as a Sweeper w.e.f 9.6.1996 to 8.6.1999 but had started remaining absent and accordingly, the claim made in the claim statement was denied. The parties led evidence before the Labour Court. Though the workman gave evidence in support of his claim made in the claim statement, but admitted during his cross-examination that he had applied for the post of Mali. The workman could not prove that he had worked continuously for 240 days in a year preceding the order of his termination. No evidence in this regard was led before the Court. On this basis, the Labour Court declined the reference. The counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any evidence in support of his claim, which was led before the Court but was not taken into consideration. There is, thus, no cause made out to interfere in the impugned award. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. September 15, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE