IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 13 of 2009. Date of Decision : 06 January, 2009. Mange Ram ........ Petitioner. Versus The Presiding Officer and others ......... Respondents. -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. -.- Present:- Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) The contention of the petitioner while challenging the award dated 20.05.2008 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, is that he was appointed as watchman on 26.02.1997 under the respondents and continued to serve them till his services were terminated on 23.03.1998 without assigning any reason. It is further the contention of counsel for the petitioner that Section 25-F as well as Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, have not been complied with. He submits that since the provisions mandated under the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with, therefore, his termination was bad and he deserves reinstatement in service. A perusal of the impugned award would show that the workman has completed less than 240 days in a calendar year. Therefore, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act has not come into play. No evidence has come on record which would show that the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with. Counsel for the petitioner contends that only records of Loharu Sub Division where the petitioner had worked with the C.W.P. No. 13 of 2009. -2- respondents has been produced whereas he has worked at two places; first was at Pump No. 6 and second was Atela Distributory. The same has come in the statement of M.W.1 Satpal Singh, S.D.O. The records which have been produced before the Labour Court has been fully considered by the Labour Court and therefore, I do not find any reason to take a view which is not on the same lines. The evidence which has been produced before the Labour Court has been fully considered and a positive finding has been given that the petitioner has not completed 240 days in a calendar year. A perusal of the reply submitted to the claim petition by the respondent made by the petitioner which is placed as Annexure-P-3 as a matter of fact the petitioner has worked for 151 days during the period when he was engaged with the respondents. That being so, I do not find any merit in this petition and dismiss the same. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 06, 2009. sjks.