IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 10316 of 2007. Date of Decision : April 16, 2009. Workman Dilbagh Singh. ....... Petitioner. Versus. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala,and another. ....... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent No. 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 13.11.2006 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Labour Court, Ambala, vide which the reference has been answered against the petitioner-workman, holding him not entitled to any relief as he has not completed 240 days in the 12 preceding calendar months from the date of his termination. Costs of Rs. 3,000/- have also been imposed upon the petitioner-workman by the Labour Court. Counsel for the petitioner-workman contends that the respondent No. 2-management while filing its written statement before the Labour Court had initially stated that the petitioner-workman has completed 71 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination whereas C.W.P. No. 10316 of 2007. when the records were called, it has come on record that the petitioner- workman has indeed worked for 81 days. The explanation put forth by the respondent No.2-management is that 71 days were actual days put in by the petitioner-workman while working with them. If the holidays which would fall within this period, are added up then it would come to 81 days. Counsel for the petitioner-workman on this basis contends that no reliance can be placed on the submissions and documents produced by the respondent No. 2-management on this core. He further contends that costs which have been imposed upon the petitioner-workman are too harsh as it was never the intention of the petitioner-workman to mis-guide or put a claim for which he was not entitled to. He, therefore, prays that the costs as imposed by the Labour Court, may be set aside. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent No. 2- management contends that fully justifiable reasons have been given for initially pleading the actual days of work i.e. 71 days and thereafter by including the holidays 81 day, nothing has been concealed from the Labour Court and whatsoever evidence was available with the respondent No. 2- management was produced and on that basis the Labour Court has given a conclusive finding that the petitioner-workman has worked for 81 days in the 12 preceding months with the respondent No. 2-management. The factual position as found by the Labour Court is based on the evidence produced by the parties before the Labour Court, and therefore, does not call for any interference. Counsel for the respondent No. 2-management, however, has no objection to setting aside of the costs of Rs. 3,000/- imposed upon the petitioner-workman by the Labour Court. -2- C.W.P. No. 10316 of 2007. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Perusal of the impugned award dated 13.11.2006 (Annexure-P- 1), clearly shows that the Labour Court has taken into consideration oral as well as documentary evidence which have been produced by the parties before the Labour Court. On perusal thereof, the findings which have been recorded by the Labour Court, are fully justified. The submission of counsel for the petitioner with regard to difference in the days i.e. 71 days and 81 days, are of no consequence for reasonable explanation as has been put forth by the respondent-management, explaining out the difference of initial 71 days which were the actually days the petitioner-workman has put in and 81 days which included the holidays which in any case was granted to the petitioner-workman as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, the contention of counsel for the petitioner-workman cannot be accepted. The findings as recorded by the Labour Court, are based on the evidence, and therefore, does not call for any interference in the present writ petition. However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, costs of Rs. 3,000/- imposed on the petitioner-workman by the Labour Court, are set aside. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE April 16, 2009. sjks. Whether referred to the Reporter – Yes/No. -3-