C.W.P No.927 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.927 of 2007 Date of Decision: 26.08.2009 Ami Chand .....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Balkar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi K. Mattoo, Advocate for Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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 rejecting the reference sought on behalf of the workman that the termination made on 25.09.2001 was illegal. The contention of the workman was that he had been suffering from severe back-pain and he was being treated in ESI Hospital and when he sought to rejoin after be became well, the management had unceremoniously terminated his services on 25.09.2001. 2. Before the Labour Court, apart from giving his own evidence that he was working from March 1990 onwards he brought evidence of WW-2 with the records from the factory that showed that the workman had been working at various spells of 200 days but none C.W.P No.927 of 2007 -2- of the documents proved that he had been in 240 days of continuous service in any one of the calendar year. The Labour Court decided to reject the reference on the ground that the workman had admitted in his evidence that between 2000 to 2003, he had not worked for 240 days in any year. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that Labour Court failed to consider the evidence of WW-2 and the fact of entries in the attendance register that showed that he had been working continuously from the year 1990. The learned counsel also sought to contend that the so-called admission in evidence that between the years 2001 to 2003 he did not have 240 days in any year ought not to have been relevant for what was relevant was for the period from October 2000 to September 2001. The learned counsel, however, is not able to point out to any evidence that during the relevant period of 12 months prior to the date of termination namely on 25.09.2001, the petitioner had 240 days of continuous service. I do not also find anywhere stating either in the pleadings in the claim statement or in the written statement that the workman had ever complained that the management was deliberately preventing him from working 240 days in every year and they were adopting unfair labour practice to prevent him from completing 240 days in any year to claim the statutory benefits. Indeed, in the absence of such plea, there was no occasion even for the Labour Court to look beyond the relevant fact whether the workman had 240 days of continuous service prior to the termination to find a cause for rendering a finding that the termination was bad. C.W.P No.927 of 2007 -3- 4. The Labour has adverted to the relevant evidence and the admission by the workman himself that he had not 240 days of continuous service prior to his termination. The rejection of reference is unexceptional and I find no ground to interfere with the same. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 26, 2009 Pankaj*