CWP No. 5194 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 5194 of 2010 Date of decision: 23.03.2010 Ram Gopal son of Sh. Dhukhi Ram ...... PETITIONER VERSUS The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh and another ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Sunil K. Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the Award dated 06.08.2009 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh, wherein the reference has been answered against the workman holding him not entitled to any benefit for the reason that the workman has failed to prove before the Court that he had worked for 240 days in 12 preceding months from the date of his termination or in any calendar year from the date of his alleged appointment and also on the ground that the workman has abandoned the service. CWP No. 5194 of 2010 2 Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed way back in the year 1990 and has continued as such with respondent No. 2-Management till 1996. The name of the concern was changed from M/s Vishal Industrial Corporation to M/s Sandip Industries. He contends that there was continuous service of the workman from the year 1990 till the date of his termination i.e. 08.03.2000. He contends that Since the petitioner was working continuously with respondent No. 2- Management even if it is assumed till the year 1996 then also the service of the workman was terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act as neither any notice was given nor any retrenchment compensation was paid to the petitioner. He, on this basis, contends that the Award cannot be sustained. His further contention is that the plea of the Management with regard to the abandonment of the service is an afterthought as on termination of the service of the petitioner on 08.03.2000, the petitioner has submitted his demand notice on 23.03.2000. The letters, which have been produced by the Management before the Labour Court, are subsequent to the date of demand notice, therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration for coming to a conclusion that the petitioner had abandoned the service. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. Even if it is assumed that the service of the petitioner-workman was terminated on 08.03.2000 and the Management has taken steps to cover up the termination of the service by issuing letters to the petitioner dated 03.04.2000, 20.04.2000 and 17.05.2000 Exs. M-2, M-3 and M-8 as the workman had given his demand notice much prior to that i.e. 23.03.2000 but still the workman has failed to prove before the Labour Court that he had completed 240 days in service in 12 preceding months CWP No. 5194 of 2010 3 from the date of his termination. Not only this, the workman-petitioner has failed to prove that in any of the calendar years prior to his termination, he had completed 240 days. The onus to prove this fact was on the workman- petitioner that he had completed 240 days in service in 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. It is an admitted position that the Management had taken a specific stand that the workman had not completed 240 days in service in 12 preceding months from the date of his termination nor has he completed 240 days in any calendar years prior to his termination in which he is alleged to have worked with the Management but still the workman has failed to summon the records of the Management to prove his contention that he had indeed worked for 240 days with the Management in the calendar year or in 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. In the absence of the onus having been discharged by the workman with regard to the fact that he had completed more than 240 days in service, the findings, which have been recorded by the Labour Court in this regard, cannot be faulted with. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE March 23, 2010 pj