DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER (SOCIAL FORESTRY PROJECT), BHIWANI, NOW THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER (TERRITORIAL), BHIWANI Vs. ROSHNI DEVI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 11.03.2008 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Industrial Tribunalcum- Labour Court, Rohtak, vide which the reference had been answered in favour of the respondent No. 1/Worklady (hereinafter referred to as "the Worklady"), holding her entitled to reinstatement in service on previous post with continuity thereof and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice, i.e., 28.05.2001.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner/Management (hereinafter referred to as "the Management") contends that as per assertion of the Worklady, she was appointed on 01.01.1993 as Beldar-cum-Mali and she continued to serve with the Management till 31.12.1999. The Labour Court, while drawing adverse inference against the Management had taken into consideration the muster rolls for the year, 1998, which were not relevant as far as the computation of 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months from the date of her alleged termination is concerned. He contends that the records were summoned from the Management and the Management Witness had produced the records, which were available with it and, thus, the adverse inference, which had been drawn against the Management in holding that the Worklady had completed more than 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months from the date of her termination for non production of the records pertaining to the period 01.01.1999 to 31.12.1999, cannot be sustained. His further contention is that the Worklady Witness, namely, Ramesh Kumar/WW-2, Clerk, o/o Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani, who had appeared before the Labour Court, had deposed that he has not brought the muster rolls and muster roll issue register from January, 1999 to December, 1999, as the said muster rolls were not available. He had further stated that he would not be in a position to produce the records in future as well. His contention is that the Worklady Witness, if does not produce her records, the Management cannot be held to be responsible for the said act and adverse inference drawn for non production of records basing the same on the statement of Worklady Witness, cannot be sustained. His further contention is that the Management Witness had categorically stated before the Labour Court that the Worklady had not completed more than 240 days in service in any calendar year and, therefore, the finding recorded by the Labour Court on the basis of an adverse inference drawn against the Management for non production of the summoned records by the Worklady Witness, cannot be sustained.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondent No. 1/Worklady submits that the Worklady being a daily wager does not have any records. She, therefore, is dependent on the Management for production of records. The onus being on the Worklady to prove that she had worked with the Management for 240 days in the 12 preceding months with the Management from the date of her termination, she moved an appropriate application before the Labour Court for production of records and for summoning of the witness with the records. The said application was allowed and accordingly, the records were summoned from the Management for proving the case of the Worklady. Although, he has been termed as a Worklady Witness as he had been summoned on an application moved by the Worklady, but the said witness was deposing on the basis of the records. The deposition of the Worklady Witness, namely, Shri Ramesh Kumar, Clerk (WW-2), o/o Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani, is based on the records and when he states before the Labour Court that the muster rolls and muster roll issue register from January, 1999, to December, 1999, could not be produced as they were not available and the same could not be produced in future as well, the adverse inference, which had been drawn by the Labour Court, is fully justified. He on this basis contends that the findings recorded by Labour Court, are in accordance with law and does not call for any interference by this Court.