IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6622 of 2005 Date of decision: 02.03.2009 The Director Horticulture, Punjab and others .....PETITIONERS VERSUS Jagjivan Parshad c/o sh. S.L.Devgan and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, AAG, Punjab, for the petitioners. Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 13.01.2005 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Jalandhar, vide which reference has been answered in favour of the workman holding therein that Sundays and other holidays, on which the workman has not worked, are also to be added as working days for calculating the continuous service under Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On this basis, the workman has been held to have completed 240 days and, therefore, entitled to reinstatement in service with back wages. CWP No. 6622 of 2005 -2- Counsel for the petitioners contends that this finding of the Labour Court is totally against the provisions of Section 25-B of the Act, which provides for 240 days work, which the workman had actually worked for the said period and not less than 240 days. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 1 contends that the Labour Court has rightly counted Sundays and other holidays while calculating the days, the workman had worked for 12 preceding months before his termination, as has been referred to in para-8 of the award. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the award. Perusal of the award would show that evidence, which has been produced by the Management before the Labour Court overwhelmingly showed that for the relevant period i.e. February, 1996 to January, 1997, the workman had indeed completed 208 ½ days. It has also come on record that from the attendance sheet, which has been produced by the management before the Labour Court, it is clear that the workman did not work for Sundays and other holidays. In view of this fact that the workman indeed had not worked on Sundays and other holidays, nor is it the case of the workman that he had been paid for these days, for which he had not worked with the petitioners, the finding, as recorded by the Labour Court for coming to the conclusion that the workman has completed more than 240 days during the relevant period by counting Sundays and other holidays, is totally unjustified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Workman of American Express International Banking Corporation vs. Management of American Express, International Banking Corporation, A.I.R. 1996 Supreme Court, 458, has held that where the workman has although not worked but has been paid for the days, for which he had actually not worked, would be counted CWP No. 6622 of 2005 -3- for the purpose of calculating 240 days in the 12 calendar months. In view of the above, I do not find the conclusion drawn by the Labour Court in holding the workman to have completed 240 days in accordance with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The award dated 13.01.2005 (Annexure P-1), therefore, cannot be sustained and is, hereby, set aside. The writ petition is allowed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE March 02, 2009 pj