IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 2281 of 1995. Date of Decision : April 15, 2009. Kiran Pal. ....... Petitioner. Versus. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court,U.T. Chandigarh, and another. ....... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent No. 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 07.04.1994 passed by the Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh, vide which the reference has been answered against the workman. It is the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court has totally overlooked the fact that the petitioner-workman was in service since 21.07.1989. He contends that the E.S.I. card Ex.W.1 clearly shows that the petitioner-workman was in service since July,1989. He contends that no reason whatsoever has been given by the respondent- management for terminating the service of the petitioner-workman and the C.W.P. No. 2281 of 1995. ground which has been in response to the demand notice pleaded before the Labour Court by the respondent-management is that the petitioner-workman was appointed as Apprentice Sweeper on 01.09.1990. The job of cleaning and sanitation being a specialised training as per the demands of the workers environment. The apprentice continued upto 31.08.1991 and the same was terminated as he was not found fit for regular employment. He contends that the job of a sweeper can never be termed as technical assignment and this ground has been taken by the respondent-management merely to frustrate the claim of the petitioner-workman. He contends that nothing has been placed on record to substantiate this claim of the respondent-management and therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court, cannot be sustained. A perusal of the impugned award and the records of the case would clearly indicate that the petitioner-workman has been unable to prove his assertion that he had joined the respondent-management on 21.07.1989. It is the assertion of counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court should have taken into consideration the E.S.I. card which gave his date of appointment. He contends that the assertion of the respondent-management that the petitioner-workman was appointed as apprentice trainee sweeper vide Ex. M.1 dated 21.08.1990 (Annexure-P-2), is not justified, however, he admits that the petitioner-workman has admitted his signatures in the appointment letter Ex.M.1 in his cross-examination before the Labour Court. He further submits that subsequently this period of apprentice was further extended by another six months which was to expire on 31.08.1991. The respondent-management has produced copies of wages slips Ex.M.5 to Ex.M.16. All these go to show that the petitioner-workman has only worked -2- C.W.P. No. 2281 of 1995. with the respondent-management from 01.09.1990 to 31.08.1991 i.e. within the period of apprenticeship with the respondent-management. The assertion of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner- workman joined the respondent-management on 21.07.1989, cannot be accepted as no evidence has been brought on record, substantiating his such claim nor any steps have been taken by the petitioner-workman to call for the records of the respondent-management which would have proved beyond doubt the assertion of the petitioner-workman with regard to his appointment on 21.07.1989. Counsel for the petitioner very fairly admits that no such application was made before the Labour Court, calling for the records pertaining to the period in question. In the absence of any documentary evidence and having not taken any steps to prove his assertion before the Labour Court, the findings as recorded by the Labour Court with regard to his period of service with the respondent-management i.e. from 01.09.1990 to 31.08.1991, cannot be faulted with. It is further admitted position before the Labour Court as the petitioner-workman had in his cross-examination accepted that he had received amount of compensation in the form of one month stipend in lieu of notice and fifteen days stipend which would be an amount of compensation for which he would be entitled to the period of one year which he has put in service with the respondent-management. That being so, the provisions as contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act having been fully complied with, even if the service of the petitioner-workman is said to be retrenched, still in view of compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the termination cannot be said to be contrary to the provisions -3- C.W.P. No. 2281 of 1995. of the Industrial Disputes Act. No other point has been raised by counsel for the petitioner. Finding no ground for interference in the present writ petition with the impugned award, the present writ petition stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE April 15, 2009. sjks. Whether referred to the Reporter – Yes / No. -4-