CWP No.13086 of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.13086 of 2000 Date of Decision: 21.03.2011 Babu Lal ...Petitioner Vs. The Hafed & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present: Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Arvind Seth, Advocate, for the respondents. --- Mahesh Grover, J . (Oral) The petitioner has impugned the award dated 22.03.2000 passed by the Labour Court, Hisar. He claimed reference before the Labour Court to the following effect:- “ Whether the termination of the services of Babu Lal is justified and in order? If not, to what relief he is entitled to?” The petitioner pleaded that he worked with the respondents as Chowkidar. He worked as such up to May, 1992 at Shiv Cotton Factory and CWP No.13086 of 2000 2 thereafter from May, 1992 to 13.9.1995 at Hanuman Mandir Godown. His services were abruptly terminated without any notice and compensation. He, thus, contended that there was violation of sections 25 F and 25 H of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short the Act). He pleaded that his wages for the month of August, 1995 and for 12 days of September, 1995 were not paid. The respondents admitted that the petitioner had worked with them for 117 days during the period from December, 1994 to May, 1995 at Hanuman Mandir Godown on daily wages. They specifically pleaded that the petitioner had not completed 240 days. The learned Tribunal upon appraisal of material before it concluded that the petitioner had not completed 240 days and thus, held him not to be workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act. The plea of violation of Sections 25G and 25H was also not substantiated and thus reference was declined. Before this court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record Annexure P.7 which is the photo copies of muster rolls which was also proved as W.1, W.2 and W.3 before the Tribunal. He contended that the findings of the learned Tribunal were erroneous as these muster rolls were not taken into account. The petitioner's name was reflected in these muster rolls and if they are to be taken along with the admission of the respondent that the had worked for 170 days, then in such an eventuality the period of 240 days was clearly established. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the contention is misplaced. The respondents have admitted that the petitioner CWP No.13086 of 2000 3 had worked for 170 days but at the same time the plea of the petitioner that the muster rolls would construe in his favour is also erroneous. A perusal of the said muster rolls reveal that a person by the name of Babu Ram had worked with the respondents but it does not show the name of parentage of the petitioner so as to establish conclusively that it is the petitioner who is being referred to in these muster rolls. Learned counsel for the petitioner then referred to the statement of Partap Singh, the witness produced in support of his case who had admitted that the petitioner worked from June, 1995 to July, 1995 in Hafed. Even if this statement is to be accepted then also it does not relate to the period of service as reflected in the muster rolls, which could establish that the entries pertain to the petitioner only. To the mind of this court the petitioner has failed to establish that he had worked for 240 days which was required by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that an inference can be drawn from the combined reading of the muster rolls, entries of muster rolls and statement of Partap Singh which is on record as Annexure P.6. I am afraid that this cannot be considered to be enough for coming to positive conclusion to record any finding of fact, more so, when there is serious dispute about them. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that since he has worked with the respondents for a long time and respondents having sufficient work, he may be adjusted against some post. Prayer of the petitioner cannot be accepted by the court. CWP No.13086 of 2000 4 However, he is at liberty to approach the respondents who may in the given circumstances consider his case sympathetically. Disposed of. (Mahesh Grover) 21.03.2011 Judge rp