EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LOHARU WATER SERVICES DIVISION, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, BHIWANI Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, HISAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 09.01.2012 (Annexure P3) whereby the Labour Court, Hisar has directed reinstatement on the ground of violation of Section 25-F & 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act'). The relief of back wages has been denied to respondent No.2-workman.

(2.) As per the claim statement, the workman was employed in the month of January, 1996 and the details where he worked were given in para No.1. He continued till 01.01.2007, when on reporting for duty, he was turned away from his duty. Resultantly, the relief of reinstatement was sought on the ground that he had completed 240 days preceding his date of termination of service and that juniors had been retained and neither the list of seniority had been affixed on the notice board and Rule 76 of the Act had been violated. The claim was defended by the petitioner-State on the ground that there were gaps in service and he had only worked in 1998, 2000 & 2001 and it was wrong that the service of the workman was terminated on 01.01.2007. The defence was that he had left his work and never come back after 06.03.2001. The factum of juniors being retained was also denied and it was submitted that the post was not regular. Counsel for the State has vehemently argued that 240 days of service had not been completed, preceding the termination and secondly that he had abandoned the job and had never come back after 2001, which did not entitle him for the benefit.

(3.) A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that apart from the statement of the workman, he also examined Ramphal, Clerk as WW1 and Jaipal, Mate as WW2. The petitioner-Department examined Balwant Singh, SDO as MW1. The workman deposed regarding his case whereas Ramphal was asked to produce the entire record but only the record from 27.05.2000 to 15.03.2001 was produced, to give credence to the stand taken by the Department. Jaipal, WW2, who was a permanent employee, admitted that the workman had worked from 1996 upto 31.12.2006 and denied the suggestion that he had given a false statement. The Management witness, Balwant Singh did not produce the remaining record, especially the one which would have disclosed the correct facts as to the period of service preceding the termination for one year. It is, in such circumstances, that an adverse inference was drawn by the Labour Court by noticing that daily wagers do not have any appointment letters and only could step into the witness box and depose regarding his case. Reliance is also placed upon the statement of Jaipal by holding that there was no reason to disbelieve the statement. It has been recorded by the Labour Court that direction was, accordingly, issued to produce the remaining record but no explanation was given for non-production of the same and it was deliberately withheld. Accordingly, an adverse inference had rightly been drawn.