STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DAHYABHAI JETHABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State, being aggrieved by the award dated 25th May, 1998 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No.1471 of 1988, is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a submission that the respondent-workman having failed in proving that he had worked for 240 days in twelve calendar months preceding the date of his removal or termination, the learned Labour Court could not answer the reference in favour of the workman. It was also submitted that the petitioner did not terminate the services of the respondent, but, the respondent of his own stopped coming to the work place.

(2.) Shri A.K. Clerk, learned Counsel for the respondent-workman, on the other hand, submitted that to prove the fact that the workman had worked for 240 or more days in twelve calendar months preceding the date of retrenchment/termination, the records were summoned from the possession of the present petitioner, but, for the reasons best known to the present petitioner, it did not produce the records. He also submitted that whether the respondent was orally terminated or he of his own had stopped coming to the work place, was a question of fact and if a finding of fact is recorded by the learned Labour Court after appreciating the oral evidence, then, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court may not interfere.

(3.) Undisputedly, the respondent-workman required the petitioner-employer to produce the records for proving the fact that he had worked for 240 or more days. The employer/petitioner without any justifiable reason refused to produce the records. If such records are not produced by the person, who is required to maintain such records, then, beyond summoning the records, the workman would not be able to do anything. In such a case, the Court would be entitled to draw necessary inference against the party, who was in possession of the records but was not producing the same. The learned Court below, under the circumstances, was justified in holding that the workman was in continuous service.