IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 8182 of 2011 Date of decision: 24.08.2011 Rajbir ...Petitioner versus Presiding Officer and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate for the petitioner *** RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner had been working with the respondent as daily wager worker since 26.10.1990. The nature of work is seasonal. He met with an accident on 16.10.2000 and thereafter he resumed his duties on 30.10.2000 and worked with the respondent upto 21.11.2000. His services were terminated by the respondent. The petitioner raised demand notice. The stand taken by the respondent was that the petitioner was engaged as daily wager worker on 5.06.1997 and he used to be paid as and when work was available. When the petitioner raised the demand notice, he was asked to come in the next crushing season but he failed to do so. The Labour Court has rejected the reference on the ground that for the rushing season, advertisements (Ex. Mx/1 to MX/3) have been given. Copies of advertisements have also been placed on record. The workman has admitted in his cross-examination that he has visited the Mill twice on 24/25 November, 2000. He failed to lead any evidence that anybody junior to him has been given work out of seniority list prepared by the Management. No ground for interference is made out in the order passed by the Labour Court. Dismissed. August 24, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) G.Arora JUDGE