IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 6705 of 2009. Date of Decision : May 04, 2009. Raj Rani @ Koyal. ....... Petitioner. Versus. State of Punjab, and others. ....... Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 07.10.2008 (Annexure-P-2), passed by the Labour Court, Jalandhar, vide which the reference has been answered against the workman, holding therein that the services of the claimant being on contractual basis and discontinuance of which does not fall within the definition of retrenchment and within the ambit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed as a Lady Artist in the year, 1983, and she continued her performances with the respondent-Department when her services were terminated on 15.01.1985. He contends that she had completed more than 240 days prior to her date of termination, therefore, protected under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. C.W.P. No. 6705 of 2009. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon appointment letter dated 20.04.1983 (Annexure-P-3) wherein it has been mentioned that the workman had been appointed on the post of Artist in the category of two lady artists appointed in every District on contingency paid @ Rs. 500/- per month. The appointment letter further states that if any post is lying vacant with the District Public Relation Officer, Ferozepur. He on this basis contends that the appointment of the workman was on regular basis and she continued till the year, 1985, when her services were discontinued by the Management. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case and the impugned award. Perusal of the award would show that according to herself she was appointed on monthly salary of Rs. 500/-. Besides this she was paid Rs. 50/- for each musical program and Rs. 100/- for variety show. The Labour Court has on the basis of evidence led by the parties come to a conclusion that no evidence has been produced by the workman to show that she was appointed on regular basis and was getting regular salary for the period she had worked with the Management. On the other hand, respondents have produced voluminous records in the form of attendance record wherein never the presence of the employee was marked from the period May, 1983 to January, 1985. Records have also been produced to show that she had been paid as per the bills drawn for the particular program she had performed in after sanction from the competent authority @ Rs. 50/- or Rs. 100/- per program as the case may be. This goes a long way to show that the appointment of the workman was purely on contractual basis and she was being paid as per the program and the performances put in by the workman. Findings as recorded by the -2- C.W.P. No. 6705 of 2009. Labour Court are based on documentary evidence produced by the Management which do not call for any interference by this Court. In this view of the matter, the writ petition stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE May 04, 2009. sjks. -3-