LPA No. 202 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 202 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.05.2010 Subhash ....Appellant. Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Hisar and others. ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Suresh Monga, Advocate for the appellant. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. Present LPA is filed challenging order dated 27.8.2009 passed by learned Single Judge, thereby dismissing CWP No.8300 of 2008. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the appellant was appointed as maid by respondent No.3 on 1.1.1994 on daily wage basis. During February, 1995, when the appellant went to join his duties, he was not allowed to join the duties saying that his services have been terminated. Again, the appellant was taken on duty on 14.3.1995 and permitted to LPA No. 202 of 2010 2 continue in service till 15.7.1995. The appellant served a demand notice to respondents No.2 to 4 and prayed for reinstatement in service with full back wages; after conciliation proceedings failed, government made a reference to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Hisar for adjudication of the question as to whether the termination of the services of the appellant – petitioner was illegal or not. The Labour Court vide award dated 8.12.1999 has returned the finding that the appellant – petitioner has not completed 240 days of continuous service, hence Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is not applicable in the present matter. Award of the Labour Court dated 8.12.1999 was challenged before learned Single Judge in CWP No.8300 of 2008. Learned Single Judge also recorded the finding that the petitioner has not completed 240 days of continuous service in the preceding year, hence, Section 25-F of the Act cannot be attracted. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that once the petitioner was once again allowed to join duties in the subsequent year, hence Section 25-F of the Act is fully applicable in the matter. We are unable to accept the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant. To invoke the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, relevant period is 12 months prior to the date of termination of service. Admittedly, the appellant – petitioner has not completed 240 days in the preceding year, as held by the Labour Court and learned Single Judge. We find no merit in the appeal. LPA No. 202 of 2010 3 Appeal is devoid of merit and hence, is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 20.05.2010 sk.