IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21482 OF 2010 Parkash .....Petitioner VERSUS The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Ramesh Goyat, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court. The dispute regarding termination of the petitioner was referred for adjudication. The Labour Court has found that the petitioner could not establish that he had served for 240 days in 12 months preceding the date of his termination. Except for bald statement made by the petitioner, which was termed as self serving statement, there is no material placed by him on record to show that he had worked continuously for 240 days. On the other hand, positive evidence was led on behalf of the management in the form of affidavit giving datewise working details of the petitioner, which showed that he had only worked for 173 days, which is less than 240 days. Accordingly, the plea of retrenchment being in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, can not be C.W.P. No.21482 of 2010 :{ 2 }: pressed. The counsel thereafter submits that some persons were again appointed after retrenchment of the petitioner, to plead violation of the provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is on record that the petitioner had not reported for duty after 1.4.2001, when it was observed that he had left the job after misbehaving with his senior worker. As such, it may not even a case of termination in view of this factual position. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in the impugned award. Dismissed. December 02, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE