GENERAL SECRETARY, CHHATTISGARH CHEMICAL MILL MAZDOOR SANGH, TULSIPUR, DISTT RAJNANDGAON (C G ) Vs. EMPLOYER, CHHATTISGARH DISTILLERY, KUMHARI, DISTT DURG (C G )

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In order to resolve the industrial dispute existing between the parties herein, the appropriate Government in exercise of power conferred under Section 51(1)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short, 'the CGIR Act') referred the said industrial dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Court and the terms of reference were subsequently amended by order dated 27/31-7-1995. On reference, the Industrial Court by its award dated 29-11-2005 finally adjudicated the dispute holding that termination of 76 employees as shown in the attached list along with the award is illegal and unjustified and directed them to be reinstated along with 50% back-wages. That part of the award has been complied with by respondent No.1 Management, but the petitioner Union has filed this writ petition questioning that remaining 1075 employees of the said Union are also entitled for reinstatement along with backwages stating inter alia that the award passed declining to grant reinstatement and back-wages to those employees is unsustainable and bad in law, as there is a clinching and uncontroverted evidence on record to hold that they are also entitled for reinstatement along with back-wages, but the Industrial Court has failed to see that the employer was under an obligation to maintain statutory records under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961; the Factory Act; the EPF Act; and other provisions of the Industrial law, and if the employer failed to produce the record, the Court ought to have drawn adverse inference against the employer. It has further been pleaded that the Industrial Court has committed legal error in drawing adverse inference against the petitioner on the ground that under Section 27 of the CGIR Act, parties to the industrial reference can act and appear as a representative of the employee for the purpose of leading evidence and as such, the award passed declining reinstatement to remaining employees is unjustified and bad in law and deserves to be set aside.

(2.) Return has been filed by respondent No.1 strongly opposing the averments made in the writ petition stating inter alia that the petitioner has failed to lead any evidence to establish that the remaining employees are also entitled for reinstatement and that each of them have worked for 240 days in one calendar year preceding the date of alleged termination for establishing the violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as such, they were not the employees of respondent No.1 / Management and there is not an iota of evidence to hold that they have worked with respondent No.1 Management, even 76 employees have been reinstated as per the admission made by respondent No.1 Management who has come fairly giving the list of more than 800 employees that they have worked with the respondent Management, however, on the basis of evidence and material available on record, 76 employees have been reinstated along with back-wages. It is a case of no evidence, as neither the remaining employees had entered into witness box nor any officebearer of the petitioner Association has entered into witness box to prove that they were precisely the employees of respondent No.1 Management and they have worked for 240 days in one calendar year preceding the date of alleged termination, as such, it is a case where there is no evidence with regard to the aforesaid employees and it has rightly been held by the Industrial Court that they are not entitled for reinstatement along with back-wages.

(3.) Rejoinder has been filed controverting the averments made in the return.