GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. MEMUNABEN MUSTAFA RAJPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article-227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner�Gujarat Electricity Board seeks to challenge the Award dated 27th February, 2002 rendered in Reference (LCH) No.490/1996 passed by the Labour Court, Himmatnagar whereby the Reference came to be allowed directing the petitioner board to reinstate the respondent (since deceased) in service with full back wages.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition may be summarized thus �

(3.) IT appears that both sides led oral and documentary evidence. On behalf of the petitioner Board an application was preferred to produce few documents on record which included the statement of the Attendance Register for the period between 1983 to 1987 and the appointment letters issued between 1983 to 1987 including documents relating the place of work etc. It appears that the advocate appearing for the workman raised an objection before the Court to the effect that in absence of requisite documents it is not sufficient for the Board to produce mere statements which cannot be looked into as evidence. The advocate, therefore, objected in exhibiting the documents. Record reveals that production was allowed by the Court vide order dated 10/1/1997 and the documents were admitted in evidence at Exh.20. However, it appears that Exh.20 was given to the Production Report of the documents, whereas the statement regarding attendance of the workman was given Mark-20/1 and Mark-20/2. It is not clear as to why they were not exhibited, more particularly when the production was allowed by the Labour Court over-ruling the objection raised by an advocate for the workman. Be that as it may, the statement reveals that the workman had worked between 20/5/1983 to 19/5/1984 -111 days; between 20/5/1984 to 19/5/1985 -106 days; between 20/5/1985 to 19/5/1986 � there was no attendance noted; between 20/5/1986 to 19/5/1987 -83 days and between 20/5/1987 to 19/5/1988 � 35 days. Perusal of the order goes to show that the Court has recorded that the petitioner Board had produced the appointment letters as well as the statement of attendance of the workman at Exh.20. It appears that during the course of hearing of the Reference the advocate for the workman raised an objection that in the absence of authorized documents a simple document in the form of statement cannot be read into evidence and in spite of taking objection in this regard the Board has failed to produce the original attendance statements. The Labour Court observed that only with a view to suppress material facts, Board has deliberately not produced the original Attendance Registers and have merely produced something in the form of a statement. The Court further observed that Board has not even produced Xerox copy of the original attendance register and, therefore, it was a fit case wherein an adverse inference could be drawn against the Board.