IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 1312 of 2009. Date of Decision : January 28, 2009. Sukhdev Singh ........ Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and others ......... Respondents. -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH -.- Present:- Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In this writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 04.09.2008 (Annexure-P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Bhatinda, vide which the reference of the workman has been rejected on the ground that the workman has not completed more than 240 days in the 12 preceding calendar months from the date of his termination. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the service record of the workman was with the management and the management failed to produce the same because of which the workman was unable to show that he had worked for 240 days as per the requirements of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act to be entitled to claim benefit under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Perusal of the award would show that the copies of muster roll had been produced by the respondent-management and the same C.W.P. No. 1312 of 2009. was placed as Ex. M.1 to M.14. The Labour Court on perusal of the said documents has come to a definitive finding that the workman had not completed 240 days in the last 12 calendar months before the date of his termination. Counsel for the petitioner submits that it was for the respondent-management to produce the record and if the same are not produced, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the respondent and the workman should be entitled to that benefit. I am afraid that submission of counsel cannot be accepted in the light of Judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of R.M. Yellatti Versus The Assistant Executive Engineer, 2006(1) Supreme Court Cases 106, wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that the onus to prove that the workman has completed 240 days is on the workman. An adverse inference is only liable to be taken when it is categorically said and proved that the prayer for production of records were made and the same were called for but the same has not been produced by the respondent- management with an intention to obviate or defeat the claim of the workman . That being not the position in the present case, the assertions of counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Finding no illegality in the award, the present writ petition stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 28,2009. sjks. -2-