IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2567 of 2008 Date of decision: 04.02.2009 Darshan Singh .....PETITIONERS VERSUS Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. P.S.Khurana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 4. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 11.02.2004 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Labour Court, Ludhiana, wherein a categoric finding has been given that the workman has not completed 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. Counsel for the petitioner contends that although in the last 12 preceding months, the workman may not have completed 240 days but it has come on record that prior thereto in earlier years, he has completed 240 days and, therefore, he would be covered by the definition, which grants protection under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. CWP No. 2567 of 2008 -2- I am afraid this contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in the light of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, which clearly states out what continuous period would be and counted to entitle him to the benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. That being the position, no illegality in the award impugned herein could be pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner and finding the award in accordance with the Industrial Disputes Act, no ground for interference in the present writ petition is made out. Dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE February 04, 2009 pj