(1.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case.
(2.) MR. Chaudhary has vehemently argued that the findings given by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, (hereinafter referred as to "the Tribunal"), are contrary to the evidence produced. We have considered the submission made by the learned counsel. Being impressed by the submissions made by the learned counsel earlier on 29. 01. 2002, this Court had summoned the record. We have perused the entire re -. cord and find that the petitioner has not produced before the Tribunal the relevant record in the form of Muster Rolls etc. to conclusively prove the number of days on which the respondent had worked during any particular calender year. The management having not produced the relevant record, cannot now be permitted to argue that the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal are not based on evidence produced before it. The fact that the management did not produce the Muster Rolls would lead to an adverse inference being drawn against the petitioner. Further more, we have seen from the record that workman has been in the employment of the petitioner since 1983. He has been sought to be retrenched in the year 1994.
(3.) MR. Chaudhary has also vehemently argued that the workman had abandoned the job. Therefore, the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, would not be applicable. However, a perusal of the award rendered by the learned Tribunal shows that although an issue to this effect had been raised, but the management did not lead any evidence to prove that the workman had actually abandoned the job. Mr. Chaudhary, however, relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Om Parkash and Anr. , (1998)8 S. C. C. 733 and submitted that the demand for a reference having been raised by the workman after a period of more than two and half years, from the date of retrenchment would lead to an inference that he had abandoned the job.