CWP No.13145 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.13145 of 2008
Date of Decision:10.09.2009
Lal Chand .....Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, and another ...Respondents
Present: Mr. Ravi Kant, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Amrit Paul, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
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 writ petition challenges the rejection of the reference
sought at the instance of the workman that he had been illegally
terminated from service on 01.10.2003. The Labour Court did so on
its finding that the workman had not established his continuous
service for a period fo 240 days in the year preceding the order of
termination. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, more than
assailing the award of the Labour Court, wanted to adduce additional
evidence before this Court as proof of his having served with the
respondent-management for a period of 240 days. The reliance was
CWP No.13145 of 2008 -2-
on a certificate which had been isued by the Secretary of the
management which, however, does not still set out the actual number
of days of service or that he had been in continuous service during the
relevant period. Yet another document was a settlement that had been
worked out between the workman and the management in the year
1990 when he was offered an employment as Conductor on
15.01.1990 more than affording evidence that he had been reinducted
in service on 15.01.1990, it does not show what the law requires to be
established in order that a workman complains that there had been a
violation of the statutory mandate under Section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act and that the termination was bad. Both the
documents do not establish what the Labour Corut found to be
deficient in the workman’s case.
2. The inevitable consequence would be to confirm the award
of the Labour Court and that there is no scope for interference in the
writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be, however,
no direction as to costs.
( K. KANNAN )
JUDGE
September 10, 2009
ashish