IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.21999 of 2010 Pritam Chand Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court- cum-Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh and others Present: Mr.Pawan Kumar Mutneja, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner had joined the Food Corporation of India in the year 1979-80 and was working as Handling Mazdoor/Palledar under District Magistrate, Gurdaspur. Reference is made to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 12.7.1993, whereby FCI was directed to make arrangements or to frame requisite policy to overcome the exploitation suffered by the contract workers. Three Member Committee (for short “T.M.C.”) was constituted to ensure execution of the task before them. Allegation of the petitioner is that the T.M.C. so constituted included the names of some of their relatives and omitted the name of the petitioner. Services of the petitioner were illegally terminated. Thereafter, the petitioner raised a demand notice. The dispute was referred for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal and now the reference has been decided against the petitioner-workman. Counsel for the petitioner has made a single-fold submission before me to say that the award passed by the Labour Court is perverse. To substantiate his limb of submission, the counsel contends that the relevant record was never produced before the Labour Court and the record, which ultimately was relied upon by the Labour Court, was produced at the time of arguments and that too without any intimation to the petitioner. Contrary thereto, the Labour Court has, however, recorded that the petitioner-workman had asked for record of gang No.2 through T.M.C. as he had worked Civil Writ Petition No.21999 of 2010 : 2 : at the said place. The Tribunal had accordingly directed the Management to file entire record regarding the attendance register of the workers, who had worked during the period in question in gang No.2. This entire record was filed and the name of the petitioner was not found figuring in the said record. That being a factual finding recorded by the Labour Court, I failed to appreciate as to how this could be termed as perverse finding. In fact, the Labour Court has also recorded in its award that claim of the workman was that he had worked through T.M.C. It is accordingly observed that it is not contention of the workman that his name was not forwarded by the contractor to the Food Corporation of India at the time of abolition of the contract system and introduction of T.M.C. Mechanism. In view of this factual position, I do not see any perversity in the impugned award. No case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction, therefore, is made out. Dismissed. December 09, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE