OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 846 of 2002 (O/M). Date of Decision : February 10, 2010. Sia Singh ...... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hisar, and another ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the Award dated 14.06.2001 (Annexure-P-12), passed by the Labour Court, Hisar, (hereinafter referred to as “the Labour Court”), vide which the reference had been answered against the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “the Workman”) on the ground that the Workman had failed to prove before the Labour Court by leading any cogent evidence that he had completed 240 days in service in the preceding 12 months from the date of his termination. Counsel for the Workman submits that the records pertaining to the dates and the days when the Workman worked with the respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “the Management”) were available with the Management. The Management had failed to produce the same, for which adverse inference should have been drawn by the Labour Court against the Management. He contends that the Management Witness Shri R.N. Chugh, District Manager, who appeared as M.W.1 had not given full details with regard to the period of work, which the Workman had put in with the C.W.P. No. 846 of 2002 (O/M). -2- Management. He contends that the statement of the Management Witness that after July 1996, no muster rolls were maintained, is also incorrect and for this contention he relies upon the extract of daily attendance register pertaining to Fatehabad, which relate to the months of May, July and August, 1997, which are placed on record as Annexure-P-9 to Annexure-P-11. He on this basis contends that the evidence, which had been produced by the Management, is contrary to the records, therefore, the Workman should be granted the benefit thereof as he had completed more than 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination with the Management and, thus, was entitled to the protection of the provisions as contained under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). On the other hand, counsel for Management submits that it is a categoric stand of the Management before the Labour Court that after July, 1996, no muster rolls were maintained by the Management. Even in the written statement filed in the present writ petition, where this ground that Annexure-P-9 to Annexure-P-11 are the details of daily attendance register for the months of May, July, and August, 1997, was specifically denied as they do not form the record of the Management. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The documents reference whereof now has been made by counsel for the Workman, i.e., Annexure-P-9 to Annexure-P-11, which pertain to the daily attendance register, Fatehabad, for the months of May, July, and August, 1997, cannot be taken into consideration; firstly as these documents were not placed before the Labour Court; and secondly, these documents have been specifically denied by the Management to be theirs in the written statement filed to the writ petition. Apart from these documents, there is no other C.W.P. No. 846 of 2002 (O/M). -3- evidence, which would show that the Workman had completed 240 days in service in 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. Findings as recorded by the Labour Court are based on evidence, which had been produced by the parties before it and had been duly considered and rightly appreciated. The conclusion formed by the Labour Court is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference by this Court. The contention of counsel for the Workman that the Management had misled the Labour Court by non production of the records also cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that no authentic document was placed on record by the petitioner to substantiate this contention. The documents, i.e., Annexure-P-9 to Annexure-P-11, do not bear any signature of any authority. They have been denied by the Management specifically in their written statement and, therefore, these documents cannot be taken to be authentic documents belonging to the Management, on which reliance can be made. Counsel for the Workman states that the earlier muster rolls, on which reliance has been made by the Management to come to the conclusion and to show the period, the Workman had worked with the Management, also do not contain signature of the official. This contention of counsel for the Workman also cannot be accepted at this stage. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE February 10, 2010. sjks.