CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Karam Singh vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 13 February 2001 · Citation: (2001) 02 P&H CK 0092

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.S. Sudhalkar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 · Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 11
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 14822 of 1999
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 353 words

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the, workman challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 23.7.1998 (copy annexureP/1) vide which his request for reinstatement was rejected.

2.

The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Pump Operator in Sub Division Barnala on 7.5.1993 and worked upon 13.11.1994 and that his service was terminated on 14.11.1994. He contends that his service was terminated in unlawful manner.

3.

Respondent No. 2 has taken a plea that from 14.11.1994 the petitioner absented himself and theraf-ter he did not come for service and therefore, there was no termination as such. It is contended that he did not apply for leave also.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5.

The Labour Court has observed that the petitioner is not clear with whom he was working on 14.11.1994 when his service was allegedly terminated and the documentary evidence brought on record by respondent No. 2 goes to show that he absented from duty from 14.11.1994 and did not report for duty thereafter. Counsel for respondent No. 2 has also referred to various muster rolls which are on the record of the Labour Court. She has argued that even apart from the question as to whether the service of the petitioner was terminated or he left the job, the petitioner has not com-. pleted 240 days in the year immediately preceding the date of his termination. As per total working days which are found from the copies of muster rolls which are Ex.M4 to Ex.M9, the working days of the petitioner are only 188 days.

6.

The copies of the muster rools are exhibited by the Labour Court and nothing is shown as to how the working days of the petitioner can be said to be 240 days for the period of one year immediately preceding the date of his termination. On this score alone, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. The question of the petitioner having left the job or terminated then becomes academic.

7.

In view of the above reasons, this petition is dismissed.

8.

Petition dismissed.