IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.11938 of 2011 Date of Decision : July 12, 2011. Ajmer Singh .....Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.M.K.Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of the Award dated 17.12.2010 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jalandhar, dismissing his claim for reinstatement in service. The Tribunal-cum-Labour Court has held that the petitioner could not prove his employment for 240 days immediate before the alleged retrenchment. It may be mentioned here that the Management was proceeded ex-parte and yet the petitioner did not prove the factum of his employment for 240 days. In order to controvert the above-stated finding, the petitioner has placed on record copies of the office orders Annexures P-1 to P-4, CWP No.11938 of 2011 [2] namely, the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Manager (D), Zila Parishad, Kapurthala regarding his employment as JCB driver. The first order dated 13.8.2001 (Annexure P-1) suggests that the petitioner was appointed as JCB driver on temporary basis on payment of Rs.3000/- per month. The order dated 28.9.2001 (Annexure P-2) again suggests that the petitioner was appointed as JCB driver of payment of Rs.5000/- w.e.f. 1.10.2001. The said order was superseded vide another order dated 6.12.2001 (Annexure P-3), according to which the petitioner was appointed on 89 days basis w.e.f. 11.10.2011. The fourth order dated 24.4.2002 (Annexure P-4) also pertains to the appointment of the petitioner as JCB driver on payment of Rs.105/- per day. The petitioner's case before the Labour Court was that his services were terminated on 18.6.2002. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the orders, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned award. The total period of employment as is reflected from the orders referred to above, neither suggests continuous employment nor there is any proof that the petitioner continued to work till 18.6.2002. In these circumstances, no interference with the impugned award is called for. Dismissed. July 12, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE