STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. RAMESH SINGH GOND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING an award dated 23.8.2001 passed by the Labour Court, Shahdol in I.D. Case No.35/1999, finding the termination of service of respondent to be retrenchment and terming it to be illegal due to non-compliance of the mandatory provision of Section 25-F and directing for his reinstatement, the writ petition is filed by the State Government.

(2.) RECORDS indicate that respondent employee was engaged as a daily wage employee in a nursery run under the administrative control of the Forest Department. He was engaged on 11.5.1992 and continued to work upto October 1997, when his services were orally brought to an end. On a dispute being raised, the justification or otherwise of the termination was referred to the Labour Court and the Labour Court while answering the reference has passed the aforesaid impugned award.

(3.) ON a perusal of the records, it is seen that the workman concerned entered the witness box and gave his detailed statement with regard to his working for various periods. It was established by him by way of his evidence that he has worked for 240 days in a calendar year and has, therefore, completed the requisite criteria required to come within the purview of having worked for a continuous period of one year as contemplated under section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, in rebuttal the respondents examined one witness, who gave certain dates with regard to employment of the workman concerned, but when he was asked as to on what basis he was making the statement, it was indicated by him that the records are available, they are in the office, but he did not produce the same. According to the witness of the petitioner, the records pertain to muster-roll, payment vouchers and attendance register. When the records were available with regard to working of the employee concerned and were not produced, the Labour Court took adverse inference as the statement of their witness was not supported by documentary evidence, which were available with them. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the Labour Court has not committed any error in holding that the non-production of the records available has to be viewed seriously and an adverse inference drawn. The finding in this regard with regard to working of the employee for a period of one year continuously is a finding of fact recorded by the Labour court after due appreciation of the material available on record and when the employer - namely the petitioner herein, did not produce the original documents available with them in support of their contentions, they cannot now blame the Labour Court for having taken an adverse inference. Accordingly, the first ground canvassed by Shri Samdarshi Tiwari is found to be unsustainable. As far as the second ground is concerned, if the establishment where the workman was working is closed down, still the workman would be entitled to retrenchment compensation and as the retrenchment compensation was not paid, the Labour Court has not committed any error in holding the retrenchment to be illegal. Payment of retrenchment compensation as contemplated under section 25-F of the ID Act is a condition precedent for retrenchment of an employee and if the statutory precedent is not followed, it is a settled principle of law that the retrenchment is illegal. In that view of the matter, we find no error in the order passed by the Labour Court holding the retrenchment to be illegal. If the petitioner's feel that due to closing down of the department they are unable to employ the workman, it is for them to proceed in accordance with law and terminate the service on such grounds after following the requirements of law. However, in the present case as the requirement of law was not followed before bringing the services of the employee concerned to an end, we see no reason to interfere into the matter.