IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 3608 of 2009. Date of Decision : March 06, 2009. M/s Action Construction Equipment (P) Ltd.. .... Petitioner . Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad, and another. ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Sandeep Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate, for the respondent No. 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 29.07.2008 (Anneuxre-P-1), passed by the Labour Court-II, Faridabad, vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the respondent No. 2- workman holding him entitled to reinstatement with continuous service alongwith 50% back wages as well as costs of Rs. 2,000/- . Counsel for the petitioner-management contends that the documents which have been produced before the Labour Court while coming to a conclusion that the respondent No. 2-workman was the employee of the petitioner-management, are totally misplaced. He contends that the basic document reliance whereof has been made was the certificate issued by the petitioner-management wherein it was mentioned that E.S.I. shares were made by one M/s Bhartia Industrial Security Services as well as the petitioner-management as far as the respondent No. 2-workman was concerned. He contends that 108 days contribution was made by M/s Bhartia Industrial Security Services whereas the petitioner-management has only made contribution for 31 days. He further contends that findings as recorded by the Labour Court that the respondent No.2-workman had completed 240 C.W.P.No. 3608 of 2009. days, is not borne out from the records and no evidence has been produced by the respondent No. 2-workman to prove the same before the Labour Court. I have gone through the records of the case as well as statements and the documents which had been produced by counsel for the petitioner-management on the records of the case as well as in the Court. A perusal of the document showing contribution to the E.S.I. by the respondent No. 2-workman indeed shows that he has worked with the petitioner- management and for that reason the contribution was put in by the petitioner-management. Further the provident fund which has been contributed and deposited by the petitioner-management goes beyond the doubt to prove that the respondent No.2-workman was an employee of the petitioner-management. The Labour Court on the basis of the documents relied upon by it has given a categoric finding that the respondent No.2- workman was engaged and was the employee of the petitioner-management and I have no reason for not accepting the said reason given by the Labour Court. As regards the contention of counsel for the petitioner-management that the respondent No.2-workman had not completed 240 days in 12 preceding months from the date of his termination, no evidence could be pointed out by the counsel which would justify his statement. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the contention as raised by counsel for the petitioner-management nor is there any illegality which has been pointed out before this Court which would persuade me to take a different view as taken by the Labour Court. Finding no merit, the present writ petition stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 06, 2009. sjks. -2-