L.P.A.No. 1300 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A.No. 1300 of 2010 Date of decision: 20.4.2011 Jaswant Singh ........Appellant Versus Union Territory Chandigarh and others ........Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present: Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate, for the appellant Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate, for the respondents RANJAN GOGOI, CJ. : (Oral) The only issue that has to be decided in this L.P.A. is whether the appellant-workman had rendered more than 240 days of continuous service or not. According to the appellant he had worked continuously from 7.2.1991 to 15.10.1991 and in this manner he has completed more than 240 days of continuous service. According to the management the workman had rendered service for 235 days upto 30.9.1991. The learned Labour Court returned the finding against the appellant which has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen. The principal ground on which the said finding has been returned is that the workman could not produce any material to show that he had rendered continuous service for 240 days or more. Evidently the workman had filed an application dated 27.3.2006 before the learned Labour Court in support of the claim made L.P.A.No. 1300 of 2010 2 alongwith the prayer to summon the attendance register for the months of September and October 1991 as well as log book maintained for the particular tubewell in which he was engaged as an operator. No orders on the said application appears to have been passed by the learned Labour Court. Consequently the said claim of the workman remained un- adjudicated. Though before the learned Single Judge a copy of the said application had not been enclosed it has been so done in the present appeal pursuant to the specific order dated 23.12.2010 passed by this Court in the present L.P.A. We have perused the said application dated 27.3.2006. The very fact that the appellant had filed before the court a certified copy of the application dated 27.3.2006 would go to show that such an application was actually filed. If such an application was filed, as we are inclined to hold, naturally orders should have been passed on the same by the learned Labour Court. This was not done. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently urged that no attendance register is being maintained and the Municipal Corporation, which is successor-in-interest of the Notified Area Committee under which the appellant had worked, is in possession of the muster roll for the month of October,1991 which does not show the name of the appellant. Regarding the log book it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the same was not handed over to the Municipal Corporation by the Notified Area Committee. The existence and availability of the log book or the attendance register are questions that cannot be gone into in a proceeding under Article L.P.A.No. 1300 of 2010 3 226. Whether such records are available and if so what is the evidentiary value thereof and if such records are not available the reasons therefor and what would be conclusion on the basis of the available records are matters that should be decided by the initial fact finding authority i.e. learned Labour Court. We are, therefore, of the view that the present is a fit case which should be remitted to the learned Labour Court for an adjudication on the above stated questions in the light of such materials which may be available. The learned Labour Court will, therefore, redo the exercise after summoning the relevant records and return its finding on the issue raise within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order or a certified copy thereof. L.P.A. is consequently disposed of. The award of the learned Labour Court dated 4.5.2009 as well as the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.9.2009 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Labour Court for a de novo adjudication in terms of what has been indicated above. Both the contesting parties will appear before the learned Labour Court on 23.5.2011. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (SURYA KANT) JUDGE April 20, 2011 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? _____