IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 15073 of 2008. Date of Decision : April 24, 2009. Sumer Chand. ....... Petitioner. Versus. Managing Director, Arun Engineering Company, Mohali, and another. ....... Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. J.K. Kamboj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the respondent No. 1. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 07.12.2007 (Annexure-P-3), vide which the reference has been answered against the workman on the ground that the workman had failed to establish that he had completed 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure-P-4, statement of the proprietor of respondent No. 1. Perusal of the same would show that Shri Arun Bhardwaj, son of Shri S.K Sharma, in his cross examination before the Labour Court on 09.10.2007 had categorically admitted that the workman had completed 240 days of the service with the C.W.P. No. 15073 of 2008. respondent-management. The relevant portion of the said cross-examination is reproduced herein below :- “ xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx It is correct to suggest that the workman rejoined the duty after December, 1999 and worked upto May, 2001. It is correct that the workman has completed 240 days of service. xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx” Confronted with this situation, counsel for the respondent- management is unable to rebut the same in the light of admission made by the proprietor of the respondent No. 1. The findings therefore as recorded by the Labour Court, is totally perverse and against the evidence on record which is accordingly set aside and the termination of the petitioner is held to be in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. In view of the fact that the services of the workman were terminated on 11.05.2001, and the demand notice was dated 25.08.2001, it would be just and appropriate that the workman is held entitled to 50% back wages from the date of demand notice. Counsel for the respondent No. 1 contends that as per statement of the proprietor, which has been placed on record as Annexure-R-1/1, the stand of the management is that the establishment is covered under the Shops Act, and therefore it would not be an industry. This contention of counsel for the respondent No. 1 cannot be accepted for the reason that no evidence has been led to substantiate the said contention as raised by respondent-management. Counsel for the respondent-management has brought to the notice of this Court that as per the statement of Shri Arun Bharadwaj, the proprietor, the establishment stood closed w.e.f. 01.02.2003, which factual position has not been disputed by counsel for the petitioner, the workman is -2- C.W.P. No. 15073 of 2008. thus entitled to the benefit of 50% back wages from the date of demand notice till the date of closure of the establishment i.e. 01.02.2003 as compensation for illegal termination of the workman and in lieu of reinstatement in service. Direction is issued to respondent No. 1 to release the amount of compensation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE April 24, 2009. sjks. Whether referred to the Reporter – Yes / No. -3-