Mehar Chand vs N.D.M.C. and Others

Manmohan Sarin, J.—Petitioner assails the order of the Labour Court, by which it rejected the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement and regularisation. The Labour Court reached the finding that the petitioner had not worked fora total period of 240 days, to be entitled to stake his claim. Petitioner assails the order on the ground that muster roll card itself was issued on 26.3.1990 and in the written statement, respondent had admitted that the petitioner was appointed purely on temporary basis w.e.f 270301990 to 31.5.1990. Learned counsel, Therefore, submits that with the muster roll card having been issued on 26.3.1999 and the factum of the appointment being w.e.f. 27.3.1990, if the total number of days were to be computed, they work to 240 days. The question arising for consideration is as to what is the affect of the muster roll card having been issued on 26.3.1990 and the averment in the written statement of appointment on temporary basis being w.e.f. 27.3.1990.

The Labour Court after considering the evidence, on record reached the conclusion that the petitioner in fact actually worked from 28.3.1990 and the total number of days of work are 239. In view of the above finding of fact arrived at, the Labour Court cannot be faulted with for rejecting the claim.

From issuance of temporary muster roll card dated 26.3.90 and averments in the writ petition that appointment was w.e.f. 27.3.1990, it would not ipso facto follow that the petitioner actually worked from 27.3.1990. The Labour Court on the evidence, as produced before it, found that petitioner actually started working from 28.3.1990.

4.In view of the finding, which has been arrived at, based on the evidence recorded, issuance of the muster roll card dated 26.3.90 or the averments in the written statement of appointment with effect from 27.3.90 can not negate the finding of actual number of days worked.

The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.