Civil Writ Petition No.6158 of 2000. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No.6158 of 2000. Date of decision:13-2-2008. Dharampal. ...Petitioner. Versus The Presiding Officer and another. ...Respondents. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present: Ms. Abha Rathore Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondent No.2. ... K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. Challenge in this Civil Writ Petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the award dated 9.2.2000, Annexure P-10 whereby the petitioner was not held entitled to any relief. The facts necessary for the disposal of this Civil Writ Petition are as follows:- The petitioner was appointed in the Municipal Corporation, Civil Writ Petition No.6158 of 2000. -2- Faridabad on daily wages. His services were abruptly terminated on 10.12.1994 without compliance of provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short the Act). No notice/notice pay or retrenchment compensation was paid to him prior to the termination of his services. He challenged his illegal termination by serving a demand notice on the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad under Section 2-A of the Act on 31.1.1995. As no conciliation proceedings could mature, therefore the Government of Haryana referred the following dispute to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Faridabad for adjudication:- “Whether the termination of Shri Dharam Pal is justified or not? If not, to what relief he is entitled to?” Ultimately, award was passed on 9.2.2000. The petitioner has termed the award as illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice on the grounds that he has completed 240 days of service and the management had failed to rebut the same by producing reliable and convincing evidence; that the Presiding Officer illegally and arbitrarily took on record of this case, the proceedings and evidence of another file without providing any opportunity to him; that the Presiding Officer also allowed the management to place on record written statement of another file without granting any opportunity to him;that the Presiding Officer, respondent No.1 has illegally noted the pleadings of respondent No.2, from the written statement filed in Civil Writ Petition No.6158 of 2000. -3- Reference No.117 of 1995; that the Presiding Officer has wrongly relied upon muster rolls, Exhibits M-1 to M-13 brought on record from another file for calculating the working days; that the Presiding Officer has incorrectly calculated the total working days as 229;that the petitioner has also worked upto 10.12.1994 and these days were required to be added to the total of 236 days which makes total of 246 days and that the respondent No.1 allowed additional evidence of the petitioner but hurriedly pronounced the award. The respondent No.2 contested the claim of the petitioner and pleaded in the written statement that the petitioner was engaged/kept as Beldar in the month of January,1994 and had worked for 205 days during January, 1994 to November,1994. He has not worked for 240 days in the calendar year of 1994. It is further pleaded that respondent No.2 is a civic body and had to engage workmen for specific work/emergent work for specific period and after completion of work, such workmen are removed and the same is the case of the petitioner who had worked for 87 days during 1.1.1994 to 31.3.1994 and 118 days from the month of July, 1994 to November,1994 and was thereafter dis-allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued on the lines of pleadings and has submitted that the petitioner worked up to 10.12.1994 and these days were required to be added to the total 236 days which makes total number of 246 days and, in this manner, the Civil Writ Petition No.6158 of 2000. -4- the petitioner has completed 240 days and services of the petitioner cannot be terminated with complying with Section 25F of the Act. He has submitted that according to the muster rolls Exhibits M-1 to M-13, the number of working days come to 236 days. The muster roll for the month of December, 1994 has not been produced and those 10 days be taken into account and the working days of the petitioner comes to 246 days. An adverse inference should be drawn against the management for not producing the muster roll for December, 1994. I have carefully considered the said submissions but do not find any force in the same. The petitioner is required to prove the fact that he has completed 240 days in the last calendar year. The Labour Court, after going through the entire evidence on the record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not completed 240 days and on that count, the petition was dismissed. The submission that muster roll for December, 1994 has not been produced and on that count an adverse inference be drawn against the management looks attractive but is without any force. The definite stand of the management is that the petitioner has not worked in the month of December, 1994. Then how the management could produce the muster roll showing the name of the petitioner. The finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court that the petitioner has not completed 240 days before the termination of his services is not belied by any document on the file. So, that finding Civil Writ Petition No.6158 of 2000. -5- cannot be interfered with. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that it is unfair practice on the part of the management to dispense with the services of the petitioner before completing 240 days. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in the same also. The plea of unfair practice has not been taken before the Labour Court and that cannot be allowed to be taken in the Writ Court for the first time. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. February 13,2008. ( K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge