IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 11515 of 2008. Date of Decision : February 25, 2009. Divisional Forest Officer, Bhiwani. .... Petitioner. Versus. Shri Jaibir Singh and another. ...Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate, for the respondent No. 1. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 03.10.2005 (Annexure-P-1), vide which the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, has held the termination of the workman illegal and held him entitled to reinstatement on his previous post with continuity of service but not entitled to back wages. Counsel for the petitioner-management contends that the finding recorded by the Labour Court is totally contrary to the requirement of the statute. Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act mandates that the workman can be said to be in continuous service for one year if he has completed more than 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. As per the claim of the workman, his services was C.W.P. No. 11515 of 2005. terminated on 01.01.1999, therefore, the relevant period which was to be taken into consideration by the Labour Court for calculating 240 days would be from January, 1998 to December, 1998. The respondent-workman has failed to prove that he has completed more than 240 days during this period and therefore, finding recorded by the Labour Court taking into consideration that the respondent-workman has completed more than 240 days from February, 1995 to January, 1996 is not maintainable. He further contends that in this view of the matter, the award passed by the Labour Court is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. Counsel for the respondent-workman has not been able to rebut the contention raised by counsel for the petitioner-management, however, he contends that after passing of the award, the respondent-workman has been taken back in service and he is continuing as such and therefore, as a matter of fact, a sympathetic view be taken in the present case. He contends that the respondent-workman is ready and willing to work with the petitioner- management and he would prefer a representation before the petitioner- management which may be considered. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The contention as raised by counsel for the petitioner- management is fully in consonance with the requirement of statute which does provide under Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act that the period relevant for counting 240 days is the 12 preceding months from the date of termination. In the present case, the same having although been counted but has not fulfilled the requirement as per statute. The award given by the Labour Court relying upon the period of 240 days which the respondent-workman has completed from February, 1995 to January, 1996, -2- C.W.P. No. 11515 of 2005. is totally illegal and not in accordance with the statute. That being the position, the award dated 03.10.2005 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, cannot be sustained. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, impugned award dated 03.10.2005 (Annexure-P-1), is hereby set aside. However, in case the workman makes a representation to the petitioner-management, the same may be considered sympathetically and decided in accordance with law. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE February 25, 2009. sjks. -3-