C.W.P. No.11344 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.11344 of 2001 Date of Decision: 29.10.2009 Ramphal son of Sh. Luxmi Narain .....Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Hisar and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Piyush Bansal, Advocate for Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl. A.G., Haryana. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition is against the rejection of the claim by the workman for reinstatement on the ground that he had been illegally terminated from service. The contention of the workman was that he had been working from September, 1994 and that he was terminated from service on 19.07.1995 when he was not allowed to resume his duty and verbally told that his services were terminated. The workman sought to adduce evidence on the muster rolls being produced that the thumb impressions found in the muster rolls were actually his own and the muster rolls had deliberately concealed his identity by introducing a fictitious C.W.P. No.11344 of 2001 -2- name and wrong reckoning had been made relating to number of days of service. The thumb impression expert admitted that the characteristic details for comparison were not available in the records, which had been summoned and therefore, it would not be possible to effect a comparison and give an opinion. This pertains to the entry for May, 1995. Even as regards the remaining months, the Labour Court found on production of records that he had worked only for 43 days. The initial onus of establishing the number of days which the workman had worked was always on the workman and in this case, the examination of the muster rolls did not reveal his engagement for any period in excess of 240 days. 2. The finding of the Labour Court, under the circumstances, cannot be faulted and there is no scope for interference in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 29, 2009 Pankaj*