IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 6967 of 2008 Date of Decision: April 29,2008 Ram Sarup .................................................... Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ambala, and others ........................... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia Present: Mr. G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioner. .... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. The challenge in the writ petition is to the award Annexure P4 dated 1.6.2001 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, vide which the reference was answered against the workman. The dispute between the petitioner-workman and the respondents was referred to the Labour Court, Ambala, before whom the question referred was – Whether the termination of services of workman Ram Sarup is valid and justified? If not so to what relief including back wages is he entitled to? The petitioner served a demand notice on the respondents wherein it was averred that he had been working in the office of the Sub Divisional Engineer, PWD (B&R), Ladwa, since the year 1978 on daily [ 2 ] C.W.P. No. 6967 of 2008 wage basis as a Bailder. It was averred that he had worked satisfactorily. However, in October 1994 his services were terminated without any notice and retrenchment compensation and, hence, the Management has violated the provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short the `Act'). It was also averred that persons junior to him have been retained in service whereas his services have been terminated and, therefore, there is also violation of Section 25-G of the Act. It was further averred by the petitioner that he had worked for more than 240 days in the calendar year preceding his termination and, hence, he is entitled to be reinstated in service. The claim of the petitioner was denied by the Management. A detailed chart of the number of days during which the petitioner had worked was filed according to which the petitioner did not complete 240 days in any calendar year. It was also averred that in the year preceding his termination, the workman had worked for only 21-1/2 days and as such the petitioner is not entitled to be reinstated in service. The Management further took up the plea that the workman had abandoned his job and this fact is clear from the fact that his services were terminated in October 1994 whereas he has served the demand notice after more than 3 years. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the workman had worked for almost 16 years with the respondent Management and, hence, he is entitled to be reinstated in service. We have perused the award passed by the Labour Court and find that the claim of the petitioner is not substantiated by any evidence. In fact, a perusal of the temporary muster roll produced by the respondents [ 3 ] C.W.P. No. 6967 of 2008 shows that the petitioner did not work for 240 days in any calendar year. Apart from the above the petitioner, as per his own showing, had worked on daily wage basis as a Bailder. He was not employed in service through either the Employment Exchange or by advertising the post and, hence, the petitioner is not entitled to be reinstated in service. The plea of the petitioner that provisions of Section 25-G of the Act have been violated is not acceptable as there is nothing on record to show that any person junior to the petitioner had been retained in service. In fact, it is clear from the pleadings that the petitioner had abandoned his job. In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) JUDGE ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) 29.4.2008 JUDGE rupi