CWP No. 10793 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10793 of 2009 Date of decision July 22 2009 Suresh Kumar ....... Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer,Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hisar and others . .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Sunil Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers 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? K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The writ petition challenges the award of the Labour Court which had found that the workman had not shown to have worked for 240 days prior to his alleged termination to entitle him to notice under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It rejected the reference on the failure of the workman to prove the elementary issue of continuous service of the requisite days for non-compliance of Section 25-F. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the workman had physically worked for 240 days but the attendance register contained reference to other names. If it was a case that the workman had actually worked in the names of several other persons, such a contention is untenable and in any event a finding recorded on a question of fact by the Labour Court cannot be reversed by accepting the contention CWP No. 10793 of 2009 2 of the workman that he had worked in several names and the respective days attributed to other names must be counted as his employment. The dismissal of the claim of the workman was justified under the circumstances and there is no scope for intervention in the writ petition. 3. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 22, 2009 archana