C.W.P.No.16411 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.16411 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 12.03.2010 Babu Lal ....Petitioner(s) vs. The State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Atul Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Addl.A.G., Haryana, for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing Award dated 7.2.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Labour Court wherein a finding has been returned that the workman had worked for less than 240 days with the respondents and as a matter of fact for only 170 days. Counsel for the petitioner-workman contends that as per the assertion of the petitioner, he was appointed as Mali-cum-Chowkidar on 1.3.1995 at a monthly salary of Rs.1324.70 P. He worked as such upto 3.8.1996 when his services were terminated. He was paid salary upto October, 1995 and thereafter despite having worked from November, 1995 to August 1996, he had not been paid any wages. The workman appeared before the Labour Court and made a statement in support of the said contention. Counsel further contends that the respondent-Management did C.W.P.No.16411 of 2009 -2- not produce the complete muster rolls for the period from 1.3.1995 to 3.8.1996 i.e. the period for which the workman had worked with the respondent-Management. His further contention is that on account of non- payment of his salary from November 1995 till August 1996, the workman preferred an application under the Payment of Wages Act which was initially allowed by the competent Authority under the Act, but on an appeal preferred by the Management, the said order was set aside and application dismissed. The petitioner then preferred a revision petition before this Court which is pending adjudication. Counsel, on this basis, contends that the impugned Award deserves to be set aside and the petitioner be granted the benefit as claimed by him in his claim statement. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-Management submits that the categoric stand of the Management was that the petitioner- workman had worked from 1.3.1995 till October 1995 and during this period, he remained absent in the month of June, 1996. In this way, the workman had worked with the respondents only for 178 days. He contends that in the light of its categoric stand, the Management had produced the relevant muster rolls for the said period. Even if it is presumed that for the month of June, 1995 the stand of the Management was not correct and workman is granted the said 30 days of absence, for which the muster rolls were not produced, then also the workman would not complete the required 240 days as mandated under Section 25-B to claim benefit under Section 25-F of the Act. His further contention is that the onus to prove that the workman had completed 240 days with the Management in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination, was on the workman himself. He was thus, required to produce or summon the relevant records for which he C.W.P.No.16411 of 2009 -3- was asserting that he had worked with the Management. No application or request was made before the Labour Court for production of such record or summoning of such record. The petitioner having failed to perform his part of the requirement as mandated under law, the findings as recorded by the Labour Court are fully justified being based upon the evidence and do not call for any interference by this Court. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. There is no dispute with regard to the onus being on the workman to prove that he had completed 240 days of service in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. That onus having not been discharged by the workman, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner-workman that the records were with the Management, being maintained by them and, therefore, they should have produced the same before the Labour Court, does not hold the field. Had the petitioner summoned the said records and the Management had not produced the same, the petitioner would have had some grouse and claim drawal of adverse inference against the Management for non-production of such records. When no efforts were made by the petitioner himself to summon the records or get the same produced, the Labour Court had no option but to proceed to decide the case on the basis of the evidence produced by the respondent-Management before the Labour Court which was in consonance with the stand of the Management. The Management was required to support its contentions and they have in pursuance thereof produced the relevant records, which the Labour Court on consideration, had come to a conclusion that the workman had not completed 240 days of service in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. The findings, C.W.P.No.16411 of 2009 -4- therefore, recorded by the Labour Court are fully justified being based upon the appreciation of record and, thus call for no interference by this Court. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the workman had preferred an application for non-payment of salary from November 1995 till August 1996 under the Payment of Wages Act which was initially allowed by the competent Authority but on an appeal preferred by the Management, the same was dismissed on acceptance of the appeal and now the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order of the appellate Court is pending in this Court, would not be of much help to the claim of the petitioner in the present case, which is for a totally different relief wherein he is alleging that the provisions of the Act have not been complied with while terminating his services. The two claims being under the different provisions of law and for different claims and the same having no relevance or connection with each other, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner-workman cannot be accepted. In any case, the claim of the petitioner-workman before the Labour Court had to stand on its feet, which was required to be proved, as asserted by the petitioner-workman, on the basis of the evidence on record, in absence of which the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court cannot be faulted with. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. March 12, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE