CWP No. 5454 of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 5454 of 2000 Date of decision July 2, 2009 Sant Ram ....... Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Arun Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D. S. Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. **** 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers 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 petitioner challenges the award under Section 10 © (i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Labour Court, Faridabad rejecting the contention of the workman that his services were unlikely terminated that he was entitled to back wages and reinstatement. The Labour Court found that there had been no proof of the fact that the workman had been in continuous service for 240 days and after examining the evidence of both the parties and particularly with reference to attendance record for the relevant year 1996-97 found that he had worked only for 124 days and in the year 1997 and had worked only for 2 days in February, 1997 and hence found that he was not entitled to the relief as CWP No. 5454 of 2000 2 sought for. 2. In the writ petition it is contended by the workman that the Labour Court had not taken note of the fact that he had been in employment and there was a reference to the fact that he had claimed wages under the Payment of Wages Act for the period April 1996 to June 1996 when he had worked for 91 days @ Rs.50.95 per day. The assumption by the petitioner that if the said period was also taken note of , he would have discharged the burden that he had worked for 240 days in continuous service to be entitled to the relief as sought for. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Nalwa appearing for the respondents states that even if his application (Annexure P-6) has been taken as a proof that he was employed between April, 1996 to June, 1996 for a period of 91 days as per the chart already produced for the year 1996 it was shown that he had worked for 124 days and if these 91 days are also added it would work out to 217 days. Admittedly, he was terminated on 3.3.1997 and if the number of days is reckoned it would still fall short of 240 days which is statutory minimum period that a person could reckon as being in continuous service to be entitled to the claim as made by him. 4. There is no proof that the petitioner had 240 days continuous service and therefore the petitioner was not entitled to either reinstatement or claim any retrenchment compensation. The order passed by the Labour Court, Faridabad, therefore is in accordance with law and there is no scope for interference. 5. The writ petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 2, 2009 archana