IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.19608 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 17.05.2010 Ram Mehar ....Petitioner(s) vs. Presiding Officer and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Vikas Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the Award dated 28.4.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Panipat vide which the claim of the petitioner-workman has been rejected on the ground that he had not completed 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of termination of his services. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the photocopies of the muster rolls were produced by the petitioner-workman, which documents were not legible and if the originals thereof had been produced before the Labour Court, the same would have clearly indicated in regard to the total number of days the petitioner-workman had worked with the respondents during the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. He, on this basis, contends that the finding by the Labour Court cannot be sustained. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-Management contends that the onus to prove that the workman had worked for 240 days C.W.P.No.19608 of 2009 -2- in the 12 preceding months with the Management, was on the workman himself. The photostat copies of the muster rolls which were produced by the workman before the Labour Court were duly considered by the Labour Court while returning a finding that the workman had completed only 201 days with the management in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. In case, according to the workman-petitioner, the said photocopies of the muster rolls were not legible or clear, he could have at that stage itself made a request before the Labour Court to summon the original muster rolls which, however, he failed to do and, therefore, at this belated stage, he cannot be allowed to contend that the findings recorded by the Labour Court on the basis of the photostat copies produced by him before the Labour Court are incorrect. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. A perusal of the Award shows that the muster rolls i.e. Exhibits WW-1 to WW-10 which had been produced by the petitioner-workman before the Labour Court were duly considered by the Labour Court in para 16 of its Award. Taking into consideration the total number of days the workman had worked with the respondent-Management in each muster roll, the Labour Court had come to a conclusion that the workman had only worked for 201 days, which is less than 240 days. In view of the appreciation of the evidence which has been placed on record and that too by the workman, the findings recorded by the Labour Court cannot be faulted with. In any case, the contention which has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable because had C.W.P.No.19608 of 2009 -3- the petitioner-workman been really keen to rely upon the photostat copies of the muster rolls, which according to him were not very clear and legible, he could have at that very stage summoned the original muster rolls which he failed to do before the Labour Court. No prejudice, thus, has been caused to the petitioner-workman by the non-summoning of the original muster rolls when the photostat copies of the muster rolls which had been produced before the Labour Court, have been duly considered by the Labour Court while giving its finding in regard to the days he had worked with the Management. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. May 17, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE