RAM RATTAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the Award dated 9.2.2011 (Annexure P-4) whereby, the claim of the petitioner-workman was dismissed by recording a finding that he had not worked for 240 days and there is nothing to show that there was any violation of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act'). The case of the petitioner was that he was working as Helper/Beldar with the respondent-University since 1.5.2001 on daily wages in various divisions and worked upto 31.05.2007 and was not allowed to join thereafter. A demand notice under Section 2-A of the Act was served on 18.06.2007 alleging violation of provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act, which was resisted by filing reply in which, it was submitted that persons were being engaged on the basis of need of work on daily wages from time to time to carry out the work which was intermittent in nature. Accordingly, it was pleaded that there was no violation of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act. The matter was referred to the Labour Court, on failure of the reconciliation proceedings. The workman did not examine anyone and only appeared as his own witness as WW1. The Labour Court perused the record from the year 2001 onwards which was produced and noticed that workman had worked for 144 days in 2001, 208 days in 2002, 295-1/2 days in 2003, 205 days in 2004, 192 days in 2005, 122 days in 2006 and 111-1/2 days in 2007. Accordingly, a finding was recorded that the entire record had been made available and there was no reason to disbelieve the same as it was got produced by the petitioner-workman himself through the summoned witness Raghubir Singh, the SDO. It was accordingly held that the onus shifted upon the petitioner-workman to prove his assertion and no suggestion had also been put to the witness that the record was not complete or that the record favourable to the workman had been withheld.

(2.) On the issue of allegations that juniors and new persons namely Ram Murti, Shiv Rattan and Jarnail Singh had been appointed, it was held that no material had been produced to show the said fact and the reference has accordingly been dismissed.

(3.) It is settled principle of law to prove the factum of having worked for 240 days apart from the statement made by the workman, it was open to him to file an appropriate application to summon the record so that a finding can be recorded, that there is any legal right of the workman which has been violated under Section 25-F and 25-B of the Act. The respondent university had produced the record but no such application was filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court to call for some particular record which had been withheld. The Apex Court in, R.M. Yellati v. The Assistant Executive Engineer, 2006 1 SCC 106has observed on the said issue which reads as under:--