IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 3841 of 2009. Date of Decision : March 10, 2009. Girwar Singh. .... Petitioner . Versus. State of Haryana, and another. ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. P.K. Chugh, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 04.09.2008 (Annexure-P-3), vide which the reference has been answered against the petitioner-workman, holding therein that the petitioner-workman had worked for 219 days and has not completed 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. It has further been found out from the evidence led by the parties that these 219 days were also completed by the petitioner-workman under two sub divisions where the appointing authority and the supervisory authority were different, and therefore, could not be clubbed together for taking into consideration the period of 240 days in the 12 preceding months. Reliance can be made on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of D.G.M. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Versus Illias Abdul Rehman, 2005 (1) R.S.J. 644, and Indian Cable Company Limited Versus Its Workmen, 1962 (1) L.L.J. 409. Counsel for the petitioner-workman contends that although the petitioner-workman has put in service with the management but some other C.W.P. No. 3841 of 2009. persons have been shown to have worked for the period he had worked with them and if that period would have been taken into consideration, the petitioner-workman had completed 240 days as mandated under Section 25- B of the Industrial Disputes Act. This contention of counsel for the petitioner-workman, cannot be accepted as the onus to prove this was on the petitioner-workman which he had utterly failed by producing any cogent evidence which would have justified or proved his contention before the Labour Court. Perusal of the award clearly indicates that the detailed assessment of the evidence produced before the Labour Court, has been made by the Labour Court and period for which the petitioner-workman had put in service with the respondents, has been considered and calculated by the Court, which therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. No illegality can be said to have been committed by the Labour Court in coming to the conclusion as has been drawn by the Labour Court on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence placed on record. In view of the above, the present writ petition stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 10, 2009. sjks. -2-