Baldev Singh vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and Others

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—The workman has filed the present writ petition challenging the Award dated 7.12.1998 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala, whereby the reference sought by him with regard to termination of his services has been answered against him. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

In this case the workman sought reference to the Labour Court alleging that he had worked from 1.7.1972 to 30.10.1991 as Mason at different places, i.e. Ropar, Morinda, Kurali, Bhuri, Gobindgarh and Mohali and his services were illegally terminated by the management on 31.10.1991 without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). The Labour Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties, recorded a finding of fact to the effect that as per the evidence available on the record, the workman had worked only for 220 days during last calendar year 1989 and, thus, had not completed 240 working days in any calendar year prior to that, therefore, the management was not required to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. It was further held that in the instant case the workman had served the demand notice on 28.9.1994, i.e. after more than five years when he last worked with the management up to 1989. On that account also the reference was answered against the workman.

It has not been disputed before this Court that except the statement made by the workman he did not lead any evidence to prove that he had worked up to 30.10.1991 and before termination of his services he had completed 240 working days in any calendar year. On the other hand, the management had produced the relevant record, copy of which has been produced on the record as Ex. M/1, according to which, the workman had worked only for 220 days during last calendar year 1989. The stand taken by the workman that he had worked with the management up to 30.10.1991 has been specifically denied and it has been held by the Labour Court that he had worked only for 220 days during last calendar year 1989. It has been further held that the workman had failed to examine any other person to support his case that he had worked with the management up to 30.10.1991. The workman also could not make an effort to call for the muster roll record for the years 1989 to 1991 in order to prove his case. In these circumstances, in my opinion the Labour Court has rightly recorded a finding of fact on the basis of the evidence available on the record to the effect that the workman had not completed 240 working days prior to his alleged termination. Hence the reference has rightly been answered against the workman.

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality in the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. Hence, finding no merit in the writ petition the same is hereby dismissed.