IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8380 of 2000 Date of decision:27.08.2009 Subhash ...Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Hisar and others. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. R.K.Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ---- 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 ? ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The workman, whose reference was rejected when he was complaining of his termination, has filed the writ petition, challenging the award. The workman never had a consistent case. In the claim statement, his contention was that he had been working from 01.01.1994 to 31.01.1995, for a period of 12 months. In the course of evidence, he wanted to contend that he had worked till August, 1995. In the writ petition, his contention was that he sought to resume duty in February, 1995, the Junior Engineer informed him that his services had been terminated, but however, he was taken back in service on 14.03.1995 and permitted to continue till 15.07.1995. Civil Writ Petition No.8380 of 2000 - 2 - 2. The Labour Court found in whatever ways the calculation must be undertaken, the workman had not completed 240 days of continuous service. If his services admittedly had been till July, 1995 or August 1995, he had only 143 days of service as seen from the statement of work which was produced through Annexure P-4. He had stated in the writ petition that he had worked also in August, 1994 and the statement given by the management did not contain the details. Even if it were to be taken that he had worked for August, 1994 and if he has still the benefit of all 30 days, even then the total number of days will come to less than 240 days. The relevant period for computation to see whether there has been a compliance of Section 25-F or not, would be the period of 12 months prior to the date of termination. If the month of termination were to be taken either as July or August, 1995, the workman could not be said to have completed 240 days of continuous service. The workman had no right to complain of violation of Section 25-F and the rejection of reference, under the circumstances, was perfectly justified. 3. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 27.08.2009 sanjeev