IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6680 of 2010 Date of Decision : December 15, 2011. Kailash .....Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Ms.Abha Rathore, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.R.D.Sharma, DAG, Haryana, for the respondents. -.- 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 is claimed to have served the respondent- Management for four years as Mali-cum-Chowkidar. His services were allegedly terminated on 14.11.1997 without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). He raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat for adjudication. In order to prove that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding his retrenchment, the petitioner summoned the records comprising muster roll and the attendance register w.e.f. 31.01.1996 to 13.11.1997. The zimini order dated 16.2.2006 (Annexure P5) passed by the Labour Court does indicate that one Jai Kumar, Sub Divisional Engineer appeared but did not produce the summoned records as CWP No.6680 of 2010 [2] he was on leave due to domestic reasons. The respondent-Management produced one Ram Chander, S.D.E., as MW-1 who brought on record the details of working days of the petitioner, Ex.MX. The fact remains that the records summoned by the petitioner comprising muster roll and the attendance register were not produced. In such like situation, the question would arise as to whether the Labour Court ought to have drawn adverse inference against the Management or non-suited the petitioner for lack of evidence? In my considered view, there is no necessity for this Court to express any opinion in this regard at this stage except to remand the case to the Labour Court for a fresh decision after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to summon the Record Keeper or the S.D.E. concerned alongwith the relevant records. Whether those records shall have any bearing on the merits of the petitioner's claim, is also a question of fact to be be decided by the Labour Court. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned Award dated 16.1.2009 (Annexure P-7) is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the Labour Court, Panipat to decide the matter afresh in view of the observations made herein-above, within a period of six months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. That parties are directed to appearing before the Labour Court, Panipat, on 1.2.2012. Dasti. December 15, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE