IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Misc.No.15611 of 2010 & Civil Writ Petition No.16860 of 2010 Rakesh Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Panipat & another Present: Mr.B.S.Rathee, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Civil Misc.No.15611 of 2010 Application allowed. Documents taken on record. Civil Writ Petition No.16860 of 2010 The petitioner has impugned the award passed by the Labour Court, whereby his demand notice concerning his termination has been held against him. As per the finding given by the Labour Court, the petitioner had completed 240 days, but was found to have been retrenched after following the proper procedure on payment of retrenchment compensation. Counsel for the petitioner submits that no notice was ever served to the petitioner before his retrenchment and that the cheque, which was statedly given to him, was on account of bonus. This assertion of the petitioner has not been substantiated on the basis of material on record. It has been recorded as a finding by the Labour Court on the basis of Ex.MW1/1 that respondent-Management had offered a cheque worth ` 7560/- to the workman alongwith letter regarding his retrenchment and this amount consisted of one month's salary in lieu of notice period and retrenchment compensation for the service during the period from January, 1991 to June, 1998. This fact is detailed in the letter itself. The petitioner had admitted the receipt of aforesaid cheque while appearing as a witness in support of his case. Except for orally stating that this was on account of bonus, no Civil Writ Petition No.16860 of 2010 : 2 : evidence could be led by the petitioner-workman to substantiate this fact. The Labour Court justly disbelieved the petitioner on this count and there is no reason to interfere in this finding of fact as recorded by the Labour Court. Counsel for the petitioner then submits that petitioner though was retrenched but his juniors were retained. The petitioner, thus, pleads violation of the provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner, however, could not show from the record as to how this fact was established by him before the Labour Court. Rather, the counsel would refer to the judgment in the case of Ved Parkash Vs. Presiding Officer, IT-cum-Labour Court, Panipatand another, 2000(4) RSJ 488 to say that once the petitioner had alleged that his juniors were retained, it was responsibility of the respondent-Management to prove that none of the juniors had been retained. Even if this seniority list was in possession of the Management, the petitioner was required to make a request for producing the same. Merely on this ground that he had alleged some juniors were retained without leading any evidence can not mean that burden had shifted on to the Management to prove that the juniors were not retained. It was the assertion made by the petitioner and he was bound to prove the same and not other way round. No adverse inference can be drawn on this basis. The observation made in the case of Ved Parkash (supra) would not be relevant in this case, as in the said case the workman had led evidence and the names of the juniors retained in service. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. November 10, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE