IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 14418 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 16.09.2009 Jaswant Singh ... PETITIONER Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The workman has filed the instant petition challenging the Award dated 4.5.2009, passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh, whereby the reference made by the Government against the termination of the service of the petitioner has been answered against him. Before the Labour Court, it was the stand of the petitioner that he had worked for more than 240 days in a year preceding his termination, therefore, his termination by the Management without following the procedure under Rule 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') was illegal and the petitioner was entitled for reinstatement with back wages. On the other hand, the respondent- Management took the stand that the petitioner has worked from 7.2.1991 to CWP No. 14418 of 2009 -2- 30.9.1991 i.e. less than 240 days, therefore, he was not legally entitled to the protection of Section 25-F of the Act and his termination was fully justified. In this regard, issue No.1 was framed and the following finding has been recorded by the Labour Court : “It is common case of the parties that the workman was appointed as Trade Made w.e.f. 7th February, 1991 for 89 days on daily wages. He continuously worked with the respondent- management beyond 89 days. The burden was on the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. The case of the workman is that he worked with the respondent-management up to 15th October, 1991 whereas the case of the management is that he worked with the respondent-management up to 30th September, 1991. MW1 tendered his affidavit Ex.M-1 in lieu of examination-in-chief and deposed to that effect. In paragraph 2 of the statement of claim, the workman has pleaded that he was paid wages up to 30th September, 1991. Had the workman worked beyond 30th September, 1991 then he would have been paid wages for that period. No document is proved by the workman that he worked with the respondent-management beyond 30th September, 1991. MW-1 stated in the cross-examination that there was no attendance register at tubewell but there was log book at tubewell wherein shift duties were being made and signed by the employees who are on shift duty. He further stated that he had not brought the log book for the month of September and October, 1991 as the same was not available with the respondent-management because that record was available with erstwhile Notified Area Committee, Manimajra, Union Territory, Chandigarh. The workman did not make any effort to CWP No. 14418 of 2009 -3- get the said record from erstwhile Notified Area Committee, Manimajra, proved. There is no dispute that the workman was appointed by Notified Area Committee, Manimajra, the workman should have made efforts to get record proved from Notified Area Committee, Manimajra. Now the said Notified Area Committee is merged with Municipal Corporation Chandigarh. The workman was required to summon the concerned official to prove the said record. Admittedly, he was paid wages only upto 30th September, 1991. In the absence of documentary evidence, I am of the view that it cannot be said that the workman worked with the respondent-management beyond 30th September, 1991. The workman has failed to prove that he worked for 240 days in a year preceding the date of his alleged termination i.e. 30th September, 1991. Thus the services of the workman were not terminated illegally by the respondent-management. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the workman.” Counsel for the petitioner argued that the aforesaid finding is wrong and contrary to the record. It is stated that during the proceedings before the Labour Court, the petitioner moved an application for directing the management to produce the attendance register containing the names of the workmen for the months of September/October, 1991, wherein all the employees including regular, temporary, work charge and daily wage workers who were required to mark attendance in the office before going to their work place. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner did not make any effort to get the said record available from the erstwhile Notified Area Committee, Manimajra. CWP No. 14418 of 2009 -4- After hearing the learned counsel and going through the impugned Award, I do not find any force in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has not placed on record any zimni order or any order passed by the Labour Court to the effect that the said application was ever filed and any order passed on the same. With the instant writ petition, the petitioner has not annexed any record, which indicates that at any point of time, he insisted for production of the record by the erstwhile Notified Area Committee, Manimajra. It is the admitted position that the petitioner was paid wages only upto 30.9.1991. No record was produced by him to prove that he worked for a period beyond 30.9.1991 and made any application to the authorities for non-payment of the wages for the said period. In absence of any material/proof by the petitioner- workman, in my opinion, the Labour Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove that he worked for 240 days in a year preceding the date of his alleged termination. In my opinion, no interference is required by this Court, in the said finding of fact. Dismissed. September 16, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE