IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.9444 of 2011 Date of Decision : July 05, 2011. Ram Sewak .....Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of the Award dated 30.9.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, whereby the industrial reference has been answered against him. The reference sent to the Tribunal for adjudication was as to whether the termination of services of the petitioner-workman was legal and justified or not? While answering the reference, the Tribunal held that the petitioner could not prove his continuous employment for 240 days. The finding to this effect has been recorded in para-10 of the impugned CWP No.9444 of 2011 [2] Award which reads as follows:- “10. On the other hand, learned GP/Authorized Representative for the respondent/management has referred to Ex.MW1/A and agreement executed by Ram Sewak Ex.MW1/2 in which he has agreed to work for the period from 9.1.2002 to 8.7.2002 and he has pointed out that claimant had not completed 240 days. Thus, the claimant had not worked with the respondent during the relevant period, i.e., from 7.9.1998 to 8.7.2002. Moreover, as per Ex.MW1/1, the scheme was closed in terms of letter dated 30th July, 2007 and no grant was released by Ministry. In view of this required under Section 25-B of the Act are not proved and hence, he was not entitled to the protection of Section 25-F of the Act......” Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the authorized representative of the petitioner-workman was not present at the time when the case was argued before the Tribunal and it could not be pointed out that as per the letter dated 3.5.2000 (mark-B on record), the petitioner worked as a trainer from 7.9.1998 to 6.3.1999; from 12.3.1999 to 11.9.1999; from 13.9.1999 to 12.3.2000 and he was shown in service w.e.f. 14.3.2000 onwards when the said certificate was issued. A copy of the aforesaid certificate has now been placed on record as Annexure P-7. It is the conceded position that the record of the Government Institute of Engineering to prove the petitioner's employment during the aforesaid period was neither summoned nor the contents of the aforesaid letter dated 3.5.2000 were otherwise proved. In the absence of any proof, the finding returned by the Tribunal cannot be termed as perverse CWP No.9444 of 2011 [3] warranting interference by this Court. That apart, even if it is assumed that the petitioner worked on contractual basis for certain durations, no order for re-instatement in service can be passed as the alleged termination of services of the petitioner amounted to non-renewal of the contract within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. No case to interfere with the impugned Award is made out. Dismissed. July 05, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE