CWP No.17851 of 2011

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No.17851 of 2011

Date of Decision: 25.08.2015

Sukhbir

... Petitioner

Versus

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-

Cum-Labour Court-II, Faridabad

and another

... Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

Present:

Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. J.S. Bedi, Addl. AG, Haryana.

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.

Having regard to the reasoning in the award passed by the

Labour Court and the admission in para.6 (viii) of the petition, the petitioner

served for two terms on 89 days basis each with a gap of 8 days for a total

period of 186 days even if we include the gap period. Therefore, the finding

of the Labour Court that the petitioner had not completed 240 days of

service is unexceptionable.

To reach this conclusion, the Labour Court read Ex.W-5 which

was the enquiry register. The period mentioned in Ex.W-5 suitably matches

with the averments made in para.6 (viii) of the petition and the deposition

on oath before the Labour Court of the petitioner wh