IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.12518 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 26.02.2010 Ranbir Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. Presiding Officer and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Rajiv Doon, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Addl.A.G., Haryana *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 24.7.2008 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Panipat, vide which the reference has been answered against the petitioner holding him not entitled to any benefit. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was initially appointed as P.R.Chowkidar on 1.10.1999 and he continued as such till the date of his termination i.e. on 25.4.2001. He contends that the respondents have, with a mala fide intention to deprive the petitioner of the benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), resorted to unfair labour practice by changing the name of the petitioner time and again as Kuldeep, Sunil, Randeep, Devinder, Subhash, Vinod, Abhimanyu and Raghbir whereas the petitioner was, as a matter of fact, working with the respondents. He, therefore, contends that the Award passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained and thus, deserves to be set aside. C.W.P.No.12518 of 2009 -2- On the other hand, counsel for the respondents states that a specific contract for a period of 89 days was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent-Management, according to which the petitioner was to perform the duties of P.R.Chowkidar from 1.9.1999 to 28.11.1999. On completion of the said period, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with as per the terms of the contract. He contends that the termination of the petitioner was, thus, in accordance with the provisions as contained under Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Act which would not amount to retrenchment. No evidence has been produced by the petitioner in support of his contention that the respondent-Management had changed his name and he had, as a matter of fact, continued working with the respondents. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. A perusal of the impugned Award shows that except for the bald statement made by the petitioner-workman, no evidence has been produced by the petitioner in support of his contention that the Management has resorted to use of unfair labour practice so as to deprive the petitioner- workman of his rights under the Act. Neither the workman had summoned the records nor had he produced any other co-worker in support of the contention which he had made before the Labour Court to substantiate his allegation that his name was changed time and again and as a matter of fact, he had performed the duties of Chowkidar with the respondents. On the other hand, the Management has produced on record the contract/agreement Exhibit MW-1/1 wherein the petitioner was appointed for a fixed term of 89 days from 1.9.1999 to 28.11.1999. C.W.P.No.12518 of 2009 -3- In the light of the non-availability of any evidence in support of the contention as has been raised by the petitioner before the Labour Court and before this Court, the findings as recorded by the Labour Court, cannot be said to be perverse or without any basis which would, thus, call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. February 26, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE