IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (107) CM-3838-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-7641-2016 Date of Decision : March 20, 2025 Ramesh Singh .. Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court-I, Gurgaon and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate, for the petitioner.

None for the respondents.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

CM-3838-CWP-2025 Present application has been filed for recalling the order dated

01.03.2025, by which, the present writ petition was dismissed for non-

prosecution.

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The order dated 01.03.2025 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number and status.

CWP-7641-2016

1. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the Award dated

11.08.2015 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Labour Court by which, the prayer of the petitioner-workman that his services have been terminated on 15.03.2011 is in violation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as ‘1947 Act’), has not been accepted by the Labour Court by recording a finding that the petitioner-workman worked with the respondents starting from 01.06.2010 till 31.08.2011 and had only worked for 196 days, which will not entitle the petitioner the benefits of the provisions of the 1947 Act especially Section 25-F of the said Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-workman argues that the said finding has wrongly been recorded by ignoring the other evidence including the reply which has been filed by the respondent-Management before the Labour Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-workman submits that copy of the reply which has been filed by the respondent-Management has been appended as Annexure P-2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-workman further submits that in the written statement, the fact that the petitioner was appointed on 01.09.2009 as DG Operation has been conceded and it is also a conceded fact that the petitioner worked upto 15.03.2011 as on the said date he was terminated.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-workman argues that the said averment clearly shows that from 01.09.2009 till 15.03.2011, the petitioner- workman had completed more than 240 days whereas, the finding which has been recorded by the Labour Court that only 196 days has been completed, which is incorrect.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-workman further argues that the Labour Court while recording the finding that the petitioner-workman has completed 196 days, the same has been calculated as per Exhibit P-6 according to which, the appointment of the petitioner was from 01.06.2010 till 31.08.2011 and by ignoring the Exhibit P-5, copy of which has been appended along with the petition wherein, the petitioner has been appointed w.e.f. 01.09.2009.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-workman further submits that Ex.P-5 has been ignored while recording the finding and therefore, the impugned award dated 11.08.2015 (Annexure P-5) is liable to be set aside being factually incorrect and perverse to the facts on record.

8. Nobody is appearing on behalf of the respondents since long. Hence, there is no other option but to decide the case on the basis of the pleadings brought on record.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

10. The only reason which has been given by the Labour Court to deny the benefit to the petitioner-workman is that the petitioner-workman has failed to prove that he had worked for 240 days prior to 15.03.2011 and therefore, he is not entitled for the benefit of the provisions of the 1947 Act. 11. It may be noticed that the said contention has been noticed only on the basis of Ex.P-6 by treating the appointment of the petitioner with the respondents starting from 01.09.2010 till 15.03.2011.

12. It may be noticed that the initial appointment of the