R SABAPATHY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT TIRUNELVELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner was a Conductor employed by the second Respondent Transport Corporation. The second Respondent Transport Corporation is operating passengers Transport in Tirunelveli, Tuticorin and adjoining districts. He was employed on daily rated basis at Rs. 42.50 per day between 15.11.1993 and 15.12.1996 for a period of three years. According to the Petitioner, he rendered uninterrupted service for three years between 15.11.1993 and 15.12.1996 and after 15.12.1996, he was abruptly denied employment, without any notice. He raised an Industrial Dispute regarding his non employment before the concerned Conciliation Officer and the Conciliation ended in failure. Thereafter, the Petitioner took up the matter before the first Respondent. The first Respondent took it on file as I.D. No. 179 of 1997.

(2.) The second Respondent Corporation filed a counter statement refuting the allegations of the Petitioner and the crux of the same is as follows:

(3.) Since the second Respondent took a stand that the Petitioner did not render uninterrupted service between 15.11.1993 and 15.12.1996, the Petitioner filed an application in I.A. No. 304 of 2002 in I.D. No. 179 of 1997 seeking direction to produce the (Muster Roll) Attendance Register and (Payment Vouchers) Wages Registers for the period between 15.11.1993 and 15.12.1996. The second Respondent filed a counter affidavit in the said interlocutory application stating that they did not maintain the Muster roll as well as the Wages Registers for casual workmen and therefore, they could not produce those documents. The same was recorded by the 1st Respondent in the order dated 04.10.2002 while disposing I.A. No. 304 of 2002 in I.D. No. 179 of 1997. It was stated in the order that if it was established that the second Respondent deliberately refused to produce documents, adverse inference could be taken.