IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14164 of 2008 Date of decision: 05.08.2009 Jhabbu Singh …Petitioner versus Industrial Tribunal, Gurgaon and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for respondents No.2 and 3. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the award rejecting the reference sought on behalf of the workman that there was illegal termination from service. The Labour Court found that there was no proof of employment with the respondent and dismissed the case. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assails the findings of the Labour Court that there had been sufficient proof through proceedings of the Society where he was appointed as a Chowkidar. The proceedings dated 24.11.1986 shows that he was appointed on 24.11.1986, at a salary of Rs.200/- per month. The further reference to records show that on 03.10.2001 by the proceedings of the same Society, they have found that the birth certificate that they had with them showed that he had completed 62 years and 10 months and therefore, they had decided to retire him on 31.10.2001. On the other hand, the workman wanted the Society to rely on a certificate issued by Civil Surgeon, Civil Writ Petition No.14164 of 2008 - 2 - Rewari who was of the opinion that the workman looked 55 years by appearance. This was obviously an opinion which did not evoke sufficient creditability about the actual age. 3. In the absence of definite evidence regarding age, the Society appears to have proceeded to rely on a birth certificate which they had in their custody, though it is not known as to how they came by such certificate. If he had been retired on the failure of the workman to produce authentic proof of his age, such act of the management cannot be questioned as amounting to illegal termination. 4. The workman may have other remedies to seek for gratuity if the amounts and other terminal benefits have not been already paid. The petitioner can have no remedy in the reference which is sought for alleged termination of service and the rejection of the reference in the award is upheld although for different reasons as enumerated above. 5. The writ petition is dismissed giving the liberty to the workman to approach the appropriate authority for further terminal benefits if he is so advised. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 05.08.2009 sanjeev