NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM Vs. SACHIN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This misc. petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed against the order dtd. 27/2/2019 passed by Labour Court, Sagar in Coc-A 13/ID Act/2015/reference, by which the termination of the services of the respondent has been held to be bad in law on account of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and has directed for the reinstatement and payment of 10% of the arrears of salary by way of compensation.

(2.) Challenging the order passed by the court below, it is submitted by the counsel for petitioner that the respondent had not completed 240 days of his service in a calendar year. Furthermore, it is submitted that in case of termination of a daily wage employee, the reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the worker should be given monetary compensation, which will meet the ends of justice. It is submitted that since the Court below has come to a conclusion that the termination of the respondent is bad in law on account of non-payment of retrenchment compensation, therefore, it should not have directed for reinstatement, and could have awarded monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

(3.) Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner did not file any document to prove that the respondent has not worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. The petitioner was in possession of every document and he could have proved that the petitioner has not worked for the statutory period. It is well established principle of law that if a party, who is in possession of best evidence, fails to produce the same then, an adverse inference can be drawn. Furthermore, the finding recorded by the lower court is a finding of fact and in absence of any perversity, the same may not be interfered with.