Joginder Kumar vs Presiding Officer & Another on 4 August, 2008

CWP No. 13664 of 2008                         1


IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

                                       CWP No.13664 of 2008
                                       Date of decision: 4.8.2008

Joginder Kumar                                       ...Petitioner
                         Versus

Presiding Officer & another                       ...Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present: Mr. C.R. Dahiya, Advocate
for the Petitioner.

Ashutosh Mohunta, J. (oral)

The petitioner has impugned the award (Annexure P-3),

passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat dated 4th

October, 2007, whereby reference has been answered against the

petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the workman

had worked from 1998 to March, 2002 and hence his termination is in

violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Learned counsel has placed reliance on Annexure P-4, which is the salary

statement for the month of December, 2000, according to which the

petitioner has worked in the month of December, 2000, showing that he

had worked for a period of 240 days.

We have perused the impugned award passed by the

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat and find that apart from

his own oral testimony, the petitioner has not placed any material on

record, to substantiate his plea that he has worked for more than 240 days
CWP No. 13664 of 2008 2

in the calendar year preceding his termination. On the other hand, MW1

R.S. Arora deposed that the names of employees are entered in the

attendance register and wages are paid to them and the name of the

petitioner does not find mentioned in the same. It has further been stated

by MW1 that the workman had never remained employed with the

respondent and there is no relationship of employer and employee

between the parties. The workman has failed to prove that he had

worked for more than 240 days with the respondent in the calendar year

preceding his termination.

As far as reliance on Annexure P-4, which is the salary

statement, is concerned, this document was never placed on record before

the Labour Court by the petitioner, hence no reliance can be placed on

the same.

In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the impugned

award. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)
JUDGE

(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE

August 4, 2008
‘rajpal’