IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 589 of 2009 and C.W.P. No. 2751 of 2008. Date of Decision : January 14, 2009. Surinder Singh ..... Petitioner. Versus. Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum- Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, and others. .... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). C.M. No. 589 of 2009. C.M. stands allowed. C.W.P. No. 2751 of 2008. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the award dated 05.12.2006 (Annexure-P-3), vide which the reference made in the Industrial Tribunal raised by the workman Surinder Singh was dismissed by the Labour Court, Ambala, vide impugned award dated 05.12.2006 (Annexure-P-3), when the case came up for hearing before this Court on 25.02.2008, the following order was passed :- “ The petitioner has impugned the award Annexure-P-3 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, vide C.W.P. No. 2751 of 2008. which the claim of the petitioner-workman has been rejected. Learned counsel submits that although it has been held by the Labour Court that the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days in the last calendar year before the termination of his services but despite that the termination of his services has not been held illegal. Learned counsel submits that the Labour Court had decided issue No. 1 against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has held that as there was a criminal case registered against the petitioner, hence his services have rightly been terminated. It is contended by Sh. S.S. Dinarpur, counsel for the petitioner that the workman has been acquitted in the criminal case by giving him the benefit of doubt and therefore, the workman was entitled to be reinstated in service. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgment reported as Shashi Kumar vs. Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and another 2005 (1) R.S.J. 718, in support of his contention. Notice of motion for 08.04.2008.” Perusal of the award would clearly show that the petitioner had completed 237.5 (two hundred thirty seven and half) working days during the last preceding calendar months from the date of his termination i.e. 17.07.1995. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to controvert the findings recorded in paras 11 and 12 of the award impugned herein. The statement of the counsel for the petitioner as recorded above is incorrect and an effort to mislead the Court has been made and therefore, does not call for any interference in the exercise of equitable jurisdiction -2- C.W.P. No. 2751 of 2008. by this Court. Otherwise also in view of this factual position, provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act would not be attracted to the case of the petitioner, and therefore, he would not be entitled to any benefit as claimed by him in the present writ petition. Finding no illegality in the award passed by the Labour Court, Ambala, this petition deserves to be dismissed and is ordered accordingly. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 14,2009. sjks. Whether refer to Reporters : Yes / No. -3-