SAHIB SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present writ petition is to the Award dated 01.01.2015 (Annexure P -8) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar, whereby the reference viz -a -viz, alleged termination of the workman has been dismissed on the premise that he has not worked continuously for the period of 240 days in the calendar year. Mr. Amarjit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Labour Court in declining the reference is illegal, erroneous, perverse, much less, without jurisdiction and capricious as the Management did not produce the complete record with regard to the attendance register and service record of the petitioner.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and appraised the paper book.

(3.) IT is settled law that originally onus was upon the workman to prove that whether he worked for 240 days in a calendar year and if he fails to prove then the onus shifts upon the Management. When there is no pleadings qua completion of 240 days, question of discharging the burden does not arise. The relevant observations in the Award reads thus: