IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1356 of 2000 Date of decision:29.10.2009 Baljit Singh ...Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat and another. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Ms. Abha Rathore, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the rejection of the reference sought at the instance of the workman that he had worked for a continuous period of 240 days prior to the date of termination. The relevant period for examination was from December 1993 to November 1994. Before the Labour Court, it was contended that the muster roll for December 1993 had deliberately used the name of Balu Ram instead of the name of the workman Baljit Singh only to deny the workman's right to claim a proper reckoning of the number of days that he had worked. The finger print expert had been pressed into service for examination the thumb-impression recorded from the workman in Court and the thumb- Civil Writ Petition No.1356 of 2000 - 2 - impressions that were found in the muster roll for December 1993 and November 1994. The thumb impression expert found that for November 1994, although the name had been written in the muster roll as Vijay Pal son of Kalu Ram, it was the thumb-impression of the workman himself. A similar contention for December 1993 could not, however, bear fruit since the thumb impression expert had in his evidence stated that the thumb impression as found in the muster roll was unfit for comparison due to improper inking though its pattern was the same as that of specimen thumb impression of Baljit Singh. When the whole issue revolves on whether the workman had completed 240 days, it shall be risky to go with a mere inference that the workman should have worked by the pattern found when the thumb-impression expert could not give a definite finding. 2. The fundamental proposition of law is not denied that the initial burden was always on the workman to establish that he had worked for 240 days. If the proof of his working in December 1993 could not be established, then the workman would not have completed 240 days. An attempt was also made by the learned counsel, Ms.Abha Rathore that the workman had worked also in August 1994 but records had not been wilfully produced by the management. She refers to the evidence of WW-2 through whom it was elicited that he had no record of wages and attendance of 01.12.1993 and muster roll of 01.08.1994. The contention of the learned counsel for the management was that the records had been produced and that was how the exhibits had been marked as M-1 to M-12. Without the muster roll for August 1994, the Civil Writ Petition No.1356 of 2000 - 3 - total number of exhibits could not have been 12, as the marking from M- 1 to M-12 showed. I have examined the original records but the exhibits are not there in the Court's file. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent offered to substitute copies but later expressed that he did not have the copies and, therefore, it was not possible to substitute the copies. The petitioner in his writ petition has only stated that the muster roll had not been prepared for August 1994, but he had not stated that the muster roll itself was not produced before Court. There is not even a definite averment that the Labour Court had failed to reckon the days he was alleged to have worked in August 1994., I, therefore, reject the contention of the workman that he had worked in August 1994. 3. If we take out of reckoning the months of December 1993 and August 1994 as periods when the workman had ever worked, then the workman does not qualify for having worked for 240 days of continuous service. The decision of the Labour Court, under the circumstances, cannot be faulted and the writ petition is consequently dismissed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) 29.10.2009 JUDGE sanjeev