CWP No. 13802 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.13802 of 2008 Date of decision: 6.8.2008 Ishma ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Nand Lal Sammi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner has approached this court by way of the present writ petition in order to challenge the award, passed by Labour Court, Ambala, whereby the reference made vide Notification No.23699- 705 dated 28th September, 2005, has been answered against him. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was employed as Labour-cum-Mali under the management since July, 1982 in different Nurseries of Pehowa Range and he had worked without any break upto 14th June, 2004, thereby putting in 240 days of service continuously in each and every calendar year including preceding 12 months. After the petitioner raised raised an industrial dispute in this regard, the matter was referred by the appropriate Government to the competent Labour Court. CWP No. 13802 of 2008 2 The matter came up for adjudication before the Labour Court, Ambala where the management vehemently refuted the claim of the workman. It filed a written statement in which it stated that in the preceding one year i.e. from July, 2003 to June, 2004, the workman did not put in even a single day's work. The management placed reliance on Ex.MW1/B in this regard. The Labour Court also came to the conclusion from the evidence on record i.e. Ex.MW1/C and Ex.MW1/D that the petitioner had worked with the management for some period not as a labourer but in the capacity of a contractor. On his part, the workman was not able to lead any evidence except his own oral statement. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. He has not been able to point out anything legally or factually wrong with the impugned award, passed by the Labour Court, Ambala. The only argument, which has been addressed, is that the petitioner had put in more than 240 days service in the year preceding 14th June, 2004. However, on the said issue, there is already a finding of the Labour Court after appreciating the evidence. It has not been shown how the evidence led before the Court below, has been wrongly appreciated. It has also not been shown whether any evidence led by the workman had been ignored from consideration. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no CWP No. 13802 of 2008 3 ground to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. The writ petition is, thus, dismissed with no order as to costs. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE August 06, 2008 'rajpal'