- (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the award dated 30.8.2010 vide which his reference raising the question of legality of the termination of services had been negated. One of the grounds which have been considered by the learned Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Panipat while declining to answer the reference in favour of the petitioner was that the petitioner had failed to establish the fact that he had worked for 240 days in the 12 calendar months preceding the date of his termination.
(2.) While doing so, the Tribunal observed in para 11 as follows:- 11. Thus, there remains the sole, self-serving and bald testimony of the workman himself as WW 1 on the record to prove the completion of continuous service of 240 days by him. The workman has not led any other cogent evidence on the file to corroborate the same. He could have summoned the record regarding his attendance and the record regarding payment of wages to him from the office of the respondent which would have set the entire dispute between the parties at rest regarding his employment with the respondent as alleged and regarding fulfillment of the aforesaid pre-requisite, as provided under Section 25 B of the Act by him but he has failed to summon the aforesaid record despite the fact that It could have been easily summoned by him. He has also not advance any cogent explanation for non-summoning of the aforesaid record. Thus, he has withheld the best possible evidence from being produced on the file."
(3.) The petitioner questions the aforesaid observations to be erroneous and contrary to the record as he has stated in paras 5 and 6 of the writ petition that he had moved an appropriate application for summoning the record by way of additional evidence and has also produced some additional evidence on record indicating the period for which he has worked with the respondents. Neither the application nor material placed on record was remotely touched by the Tribunal.;