PREM NATH YADAV Vs. CHANDRA BOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner-workman seeks quashing of the award dated July 6, 2006 passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 343/2006 whereby the reference was answered against the Petitioner workman.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for deciding the present petition are that the Petitioner workman has been working with the Respondent No. 3 since May 5, 1995. It is alleged by the Petitioner that the Respondent No. 3 had not been providing him with legal facilities such as appointment letter, casual leave, etc. and had obtained his thumb impression on blank vouchers and papers. Thereafter the Respondent No. 3 terminated the services of the Petitioner workman on February 2, 2002 and the Petitioner sent a demand notice on February 16, 2002. Receiving no response of the same, the Petitioner raised an industrial dispute bearing I.D. No. 343/2006 where the reference vide award dated July 6, 2006 was answered against the workman. Feeling aggrieved with the said award of the Labour Court, the present petition has been preferred.

(3.) Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner-workman was a permanent employee of the Respondent No. 3 Management and services of the Petitioner were terminated by the Respondent Management without complying with the mandate of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Counsel further submitted that the Labour Court ignored the documentary evidence placed on record by the Petitioner which clearly proved the employment of the Petitioner with the Respondent Management. Counsel further submitted that the Petitioner had also moved an application before the Labour Court to summon various documents from the Respondent Management such as Wage Register, balance sheet, ledger and vouchers, cashbook, day book etc. but the management failed to produce the said records and even the Labour Court did not decide the said application of the Petitioner causing serious prejudice to the rights of the Petitioner. Counsel thus contended that the Petitioner placed enough material on record to prove his relationship of a employer and employee with the Respondent management but since no records were placed by the Respondent management even after the said application was filed by the Petitioner, therefore the Labour Court should have drawn adverse inference against the Respondent management instead of disbelieving the case of the Petitioner who proved on record his employment with the Respondent management since May 5, 1995.