IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 7344 of 2010 Date of Decision : May 03, 2010. Dev Raj ...... Petitioner. Versus. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar, and another ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Rajeev Dhawan, Advocate, for, Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the Award dated 02.05.2005 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Labour Court, Jalandhar, vide which the reference had been answered against the petitioner/Workman, holding him not entitled to any benefit as he had failed to prove that he had completed 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination and further the Management on the basis of the records had proved before the Labour Court that he had only worked for 130 days before the date of his termination. That apart, there is also a mention that the demand notice had been raised after a delay of six years after the date of his alleged termination. Counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no limitation provided for under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which bars the demand to be raised within a period of six years. He further contends that the evidence produced by the petitioner shows that the petitioner/Workman had completed more than 240 days. A perusal of the Award clearly shows that the entire summoned record of the Sub Division was produced before the Labour C.W.P. No. 7344 of 2010. -2- Court. On perusal of the said records, the Labour Court came to a conclusion that the details of working days as submitted by the Management through Ex.WW-2/1 was correct, which showed that the Workman did not complete more than 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months from the date of his alleged termination. The records further proved that, as a matter of fact, the services of the Workman were terminated in June, 1989. The assertion of the petitioner that he had worked till April, 1990, was also found to be incorrect. The Labour Court taking that fact into consideration had come to a conclusion that the termination of the service of the Workman was in June, 1989, and thereafter, the demand notice was preferred on 24.06.1996. This shows that the demand notice was after a period of seven years from the date of his alleged termination. The Labour Court had rightly concluded that the claim of the Workman is belated and, therefore, the dispute had been rendered stale. No interference in the Award dated 02.05.2005 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Labour Court, Jalandhar, is called for as it is in accordance with law and based on the evidence on record. Dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE May 03, 2010. sjks.