CWP-2700- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (213) Sadhu Ram Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Hisar CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. petitioner/workman was answered against 18.08.2000 (Annexure P Labour Court, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) primarily on the ground, that that he has worked continuously for a period of 240 days in the preceding year, from the date of termination of his services. 2. challenge to the award (supra), on the ground, that despite a specific application production of 01.01.1994 to 04.09.1996. However, n respondent/Management, therefore, the adverse inference ought to have been -2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal, Hisar and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Deepak Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Bhupender Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(ORAL) The reference on the claim petition, as filed by the petitioner/workman was answered against 18.08.2000 (Annexure P-6), passed by the learned Labour Court, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) primarily on the ground, that the petitioner/workman has failed to establish that he has worked continuously for a period of 240 days in the preceding om the date of termination of his services. Learned counsel for the petitioner, has made an attempt to throw challenge to the award (supra), on the ground, that despite a specific dated 08.09.1999 (Annexure P production of muster roll of relevant period, i.e. 01.01.1994 to 04.09.1996. However, no such record was produced by the respondent/Management, therefore, the adverse inference ought to have been 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-2700-2001 Date of Decision : 29.08.2025 …Petitioner Versus ...Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Bhupender Singh, Advocate The reference on the claim petition, as filed by the petitioner/workman was answered against him, vide impugned award dated , passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) the petitioner/workman has failed to establish that he has worked continuously for a period of 240 days in the preceding om the date of termination of his services. Learned counsel for the petitioner, has made an attempt to throw challenge to the award (supra), on the ground, that despite a specific dated 08.09.1999 (Annexure P-5) filed by the petitioner f muster roll of relevant period, i.e. 05.12.1992 to 07.12.1993 and o such record was produced by the respondent/Management, therefore, the adverse inference ought to have been The reference on the claim petition, as filed by the , vide impugned award dated Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’), the petitioner/workman has failed to establish that he has worked continuously for a period of 240 days in the preceding Learned counsel for the petitioner, has made an attempt to throw challenge to the award (supra), on the ground, that despite a specific filed by the petitioner for 05.12.1992 to 07.12.1993 and o such record was produced by the respondent/Management, therefore, the adverse inference ought to have been MANPREET SINGH 2025.09.01 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-2700- taken by the learned Tribuna taken. To lend vigour to his arguments, passed by this Court Public Health Department, Haryana, Chandigarh, and another Kumar and another’ 3. petitioner has also stepped into the witness box, in order to establish his claim, despite he being put to l respondent/Management, has failed to impeach his credibility. not been appreciated in its right perspective by the learned Tribunal concerned, and therefore, the impugned award requires interference of this Court. He has also tried to establish before this Court, that in case, the asked for muster roll was allowed to be brought on record, the workman would been able to establish that he has worked for 240 days, continuously in the preceding year. 4. entire onus upon the petitioner/workman, whereas, in the industrial dispute, the workman is only to establish his case, through the available means, as the record is ordinarily draws the attention of this Court, towards of the record of the learned Tribunal) also establish was duly recommended by the higher authorities concerned. 5. representing the respondents No.2 and 3, has vociferously opposed the submissions, as made by the learned coun -2001 taken by the learned Tribunal concerned, which To lend vigour to his arguments, by this Court in CWP-18671-2008 Public Health Department, Haryana, Chandigarh, and another Kumar and another’, decided on 06.05.2009 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has also stepped into the witness box, in order to establish his claim, despite he being put to lengthy cross respondent/Management, has failed to impeach his credibility. not been appreciated in its right perspective by the learned Tribunal concerned, and therefore, the impugned award requires interference of this He has also tried to establish before this Court, that in case, the asked for muster roll was allowed to be brought on record, the workman would able to establish that he has worked for 240 days, continuously in the preceding year. Learned Tribunal has acted as a Civil Court entire onus upon the petitioner/workman, whereas, in the industrial dispute, the workman is only to establish his case, through the available means, as the record is ordinarily remain in the custody of the Management. draws the attention of this Court, towards Mark of the record of the learned Tribunal), to buttress his arguments that this would also establish to the effect that the petitioner was duly recommended by the higher authorities concerned. On the other hand, Mr. Bhupender Singh, learned counsel representing the respondents No.2 and 3, has vociferously opposed the submissions, as made by the learned coun 2 l concerned, which unfortunately has not been To lend vigour to his arguments, he has relied upon the judgment 2008, titled ‘The Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health Department, Haryana, Chandigarh, and another versus Anil , decided on 06.05.2009 (Law Finder Doc ID 195854). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has also stepped into the witness box, in order to establish his claim, engthy cross-examination, the respondent/Management, has failed to impeach his credibility. This aspect has not been appreciated in its right perspective by the learned Tribunal concerned, and therefore, the impugned award requires interference of this He has also tried to establish before this Court, that in case, the asked for muster roll was allowed to be brought on record, the workman would have able to establish that he has worked for 240 days, continuously in the ned Tribunal has acted as a Civil Court, and has put the entire onus upon the petitioner/workman, whereas, in the industrial dispute, the workman is only to establish his case, through the available means, as the the custody of the Management. He further Mark-A and B (which are not part , to buttress his arguments that this would ct that the petitioner was efficient in working and he was duly recommended by the higher authorities concerned. On the other hand, Mr. Bhupender Singh, learned counsel representing the respondents No.2 and 3, has vociferously opposed the submissions, as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and would been he has relied upon the judgment Chief, versus Anil . Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has also stepped into the witness box, in order to establish his claim, examination, the This aspect has not been appreciated in its right perspective by the learned Tribunal concerned, and therefore, the impugned award requires interference of this He has also tried to establish before this Court, that in case, the asked have able to establish that he has worked for 240 days, continuously in the and has put the entire onus upon the petitioner/workman, whereas, in the industrial dispute, the workman is only to establish his case, through the available means, as the He further A and B (which are not part , to buttress his arguments that this would ficient in working and he On the other hand, Mr. Bhupender Singh, learned counsel representing the respondents No.2 and 3, has vociferously opposed the would MANPREET SINGH 2025.09.01 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-2700- submit that petitioner has filed an application for passing a direction upon the respondent/Management, for production of muster roll. However, the said application was dismissed, and the petitioner opted not to challenge the order thereof, and the said order has attained the finality, and therefore, now through the instant petition, he cannot raise the issue again. petitioner has mise termination, he has completed 240 days, contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent/Management, is that the petitioner, till date, has not been able to diploma/certificate re-instatement as a towards the cross specifically admitt diploma or degree. 6. learned counsel for the parties concerned, and has also perused the impugned award along with the available re 7. perversity in the impugned award, requiring any interference of this Court. First of all, the muster roll, which was brought on record, by the respondent/Management, would clearly reflect that the petitioner/workman was engaged as an u days, 01.03.1994 to 31.03.1994 for 26 days, 01.04.1994 to 30.04.1994 for 26 days, 01.09.1994 to 30.09.1994 for 26 days, and from 01.10.1994 to 30.10.1994 for 26 days -2001 submit that it is a case of no evidence. He further submits that earlier the petitioner has filed an application for passing a direction upon the respondent/Management, for production of muster roll. However, the said ication was dismissed, and the petitioner opted not to challenge the order thereof, and the said order has attained the finality, and therefore, now through the instant petition, he cannot raise the issue again. petitioner has miserably failed to establish that termination, he has completed 240 days, contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent/Management, is that the petitioner, till date, has not been able to /certificate of typing or shorthand, through which, he can seek instatement as a DPL Typist. Finally, he draws the attention of this Court, towards the cross-examination, wherein, the petitioner/workman has specifically admitted with regard to the fact diploma or degree. This Court has considered the rival submissions, as made by the learned counsel for the parties concerned, and has also perused the impugned award along with the available record. This Court is of the considered opinion that perversity in the impugned award, requiring any interference of this Court. First of all, the muster roll, which was brought on record, by the respondent/Management, would clearly reflect that the petitioner/workman was engaged as an unskilled labourer from 01.01.1994 to 23.01.1994 for 19 days, 01.03.1994 to 31.03.1994 for 26 days, 01.04.1994 to 30.04.1994 for 26 , 01.09.1994 to 30.09.1994 for 26 days, and from 01.10.1994 to 30.10.1994 for 26 days. This reflects that the petitioner 3 He further submits that earlier the petitioner has filed an application for passing a direction upon the respondent/Management, for production of muster roll. However, the said ication was dismissed, and the petitioner opted not to challenge the order thereof, and the said order has attained the finality, and therefore, now through the instant petition, he cannot raise the issue again. He also submits that the rably failed to establish that before the date of his termination, he has completed 240 days, in the preceding year. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent/Management, is that the petitioner, till date, has not been able to produce any , through which, he can seek Finally, he draws the attention of this Court, examination, wherein, the petitioner/workman has to the fact that he does not possess such This Court has considered the rival submissions, as made by the learned counsel for the parties concerned, and has also perused the impugned This Court is of the considered opinion that there is no error or perversity in the impugned award, requiring any interference of this Court. First of all, the muster roll, which was brought on record, by the respondent/Management, would clearly reflect that the petitioner/workman labourer from 01.01.1994 to 23.01.1994 for 19 days, 01.03.1994 to 31.03.1994 for 26 days, 01.04.1994 to 30.04.1994 for 26 , 01.09.1994 to 30.09.1994 for 26 days, and from 01.10.1994 to . This reflects that the petitioner has worked only for a He further submits that earlier the petitioner has filed an application for passing a direction upon the respondent/Management, for production of muster roll. However, the said ication was dismissed, and the petitioner opted not to challenge the order thereof, and the said order has attained the finality, and therefore, now through He also submits that the the date of his The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent/Management, is produce any his Finally, he draws the attention of this Court, examination, wherein, the petitioner/workman has that he does not possess such This Court has considered the rival submissions, as made by the learned counsel for the parties concerned, and has also perused the impugned there is no error or perversity in the impugned award, requiring any interference of this Court. First of all, the muster roll, which was brought on record, by the respondent/Management, would clearly reflect that the petitioner/workman labourer from 01.01.1994 to 23.01.1994 for 19 days, 01.03.1994 to 31.03.1994 for 26 days, 01.04.1994 to 30.04.1994 for 26 , 01.09.1994 to 30.09.1994 for 26 days, and from 01.10.1994 to has worked only for a MANPREET SINGH 2025.09.01 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-2700- short interval in the preceding year, and the total period of his work comes out to be of 136 days, reflects that the service short interval, and that too as an unskilled labourer. Further, there is no evidence except witness box is a case of no evidence, and in the absence of any is not bound to take has completed 240 days, in the preceding year. always upon the workman. The adv a limit that the workman is not required to prove anything on record. instant case, sought production of muster roll interim order, he should have challenged the said order, at apt stage. However, he opted to remain silent on this issue. Therefore, attained the finality. that he was engaged as a DPL Typist, whereas, this fact is not disputed by the petitioner, even today, that he does not possess any diploma or degree, for that post. 8. hereby dismissed August 29, 202 Manpreet -2001 short interval in the preceding year, and the total period of his work comes out to be of 136 days, from 15.12.1992 to 30.10.1994. This pattern that the services of the petitioner/workman short interval, and that too as an unskilled labourer. Further, there is no except the statement of the petitioner himself, who stepped into the witness box, to substantiate the claim, as raised in the claim petition. f no evidence, and in the absence of any is not bound to take any adverse inference and to conclude that the petitioner has completed 240 days, in the preceding year. always upon the workman. The adverse inference cannot be stretched beyond a limit that the workman is not required to prove anything on record. instant case, when the application of the petitioner, wherethrough, he has sought production of muster roll for a particular period, was interim order, he should have challenged the said order, at apt stage. However, he opted to remain silent on this issue. Therefore, attained the finality. Further, in the claim petition, the petitioner has claim that he was engaged as a DPL Typist, whereas, this fact is not disputed by the petitioner, even today, that he does not possess any diploma or degree, for that Consequently, finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is dismissed. 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 4 short interval in the preceding year, and the total period of his work comes out from 15.12.1992 to 30.10.1994. This pattern of engagement of the petitioner/workman, were utilized only for a short interval, and that too as an unskilled labourer. Further, there is no the statement of the petitioner himself, who stepped into the , to substantiate the claim, as raised in the claim petition. In fact, it f no evidence, and in the absence of any cogent evidence, the Court, adverse inference and to conclude that the petitioner has completed 240 days, in the preceding year. However, the initial onus is erse inference cannot be stretched beyond a limit that the workman is not required to prove anything on record. In the the application of the petitioner, wherethrough, he has for a particular period, was dismissed vide an interim order, he should have challenged the said order, at apt stage. However, he opted to remain silent on this issue. Therefore, the said order has already Further, in the claim petition, the petitioner has claim that he was engaged as a DPL Typist, whereas, this fact is not disputed by the petitioner, even today, that he does not possess any diploma or degree, for that Consequently, finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No short interval in the preceding year, and the total period of his work comes out of engagement for a short interval, and that too as an unskilled labourer. Further, there is no the statement of the petitioner himself, who stepped into the In fact, it evidence, the Court, adverse inference and to conclude that the petitioner However, the initial onus is erse inference cannot be stretched beyond In the the application of the petitioner, wherethrough, he has dismissed vide an interim order, he should have challenged the said order, at apt stage. However, already Further, in the claim petition, the petitioner has claimed that he was engaged as a DPL Typist, whereas, this fact is not disputed by the petitioner, even today, that he does not possess any diploma or degree, for that Consequently, finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is MANPREET SINGH 2025.09.01 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment