STATE OF M P Vs. RAM KRIPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against an award dated 31.8.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Satna in Case No. 92 of 2005 I.D. Act (Reference) by which the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the respondent without back wages. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that (i) the reference was filed after 16 years long delay and the labour Court erred in directing reinstatement. (ii) That the respondent failed to prove that he had worked for more than 240 days from the date of retrenchment but the labour Court by drawing adverse inference against the petitioners recorded a finding that the respondent worked for 240 days in the last year. Reliance is placed on a judgment of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Dattatraya Digambar Birajdar, 2007 AIR(SC) 2056.

(2.) To appreciate the contention of the petitioners, we have perused the record. The Labour Court while deciding the aforesaid reference has recorded findings after appreciating the evidence. In para 7 of the judgment the Labour Court has found that the respondent Ram Kripal worked under the petitioners from 1978 to 1987, subsequently he was converted as Commission Vendor in the year 1987 and in the same year he was retrenched. No retrenchment compensation was paid to him at the time of retrenchment. Thereafter he was assured for the reinstatement. But when he was not reinstated, he had approached to the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 26.8.2003 for the relief. The matter was referred to the Labour Court by the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Indore. Before the Labour Court, the respondent moved an application for production of the record which the petitioners herein had failed to produce. The record is with the petitioners and if they had failed to produce the same, and the Labour Court has drawn adverse inference, no fault is found. The submission of the respondent before the Labour Court was that he had worked between 1978 and 1987 and he was retrenched without following the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Initially the burden was on respondent but when he had discharged, then the burden was on the petitioners to rebut the aforesaid. Inspite of moving two applications the relevant records were not supplied and the Labour Court has rightly drawn an adverse inference against the petitioners. In Dattatreaya the factual position was entirely different. In para 6 of the judgment the Apex Court has considered the factual position and has laid down the law. For ready reference para 6 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted which reads thus :-

(3.) The factual position in the present case is entirely different. In this case the respondent had worked for a period of near about 10 years and thereafter he was retrenched and inspite of filing of Annexure P-1 and P-3, the relevant records were not produced. In these circumstances the Labour Court has rightly drawn adverse inference against the petitioners.