IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 8070 of 2010 Date of Decision : May 05, 2010. Jasbir Singh ...... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur, and another ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the Award dated 01.10.2009 (Annexure-P-5), passed by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, vide which the reference made to the Court had been answered against the petitioner/Workman on the ground that the petitioner/Workman had failed to prove that he had completed 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination and that the services of the petitioner/Workman were terminated as per contract and the termination would be covered by Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (in short “the Act”). Counsel for the petitioner/Workman contends that the respondent/Management had taken varying stands in the written statement with regard to appointment and status of the petitioner/Workman. He contends that the initial stand of the respondent/Management was that he was appointed against leave vacancy and thereafter his appointment was shifted on contract basis. He contends that the petitioner/Workman had been able to show that the stand of the respondent/Management with regard to the appointment of the petitioner/Workman was with effect from 03.04.1999 was incorrect. As a matter of fact, the petitioner/Workman was appointed with C.W.P. No. 8070 of 2010. -2- effect from 01.03.1998. He on this basis contends that the reliance placed by the Labour Court on the evidence produced by the respondent/Management cannot be relied upon. He further contends that the petitioner/Workman had asserted before the Labour Court that he had completed more than 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination, therefore, the finding recorded by the Labour Court cannot be sustained. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. The onus to prove that the petitioner/Workman had worked with respondent/Management for 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination to claim the benefit under Section 25-F of the Act was upon him. No evidence had been brought on record by the petitioner/Workman which could support the claim as made by him before the Labour Court. His bald statement cannot be made the basis for giving such a finding. No efforts were made by the petitioner/Workman to summon the records of the respondent/Management to prove the claim, which he had made before the Labour Court. The finding recorded by the Labour Court is based on the evidence produced by the parties and, therefore, cannot be said to be perverse or without any basis, which would call for interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE May 05, 2010. sjks.