STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 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.

(2.) 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 State of M.P.vs Ram Kripal Verma. 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 [AIR 2007 SC 2056].

(3.) THE factual position in the present case is entirely different. In this case the respondent had worked for a period of nearabout 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.