BANWARI LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-workman is aggrieved against the award dated 11.07.2008 (Annexure P7) whereby the Labour Court, Gurgaon has declined his reference on the ground that the workman has failed to prove that he had completed 240 days of continuous service preceding his date of termination and that his appointment was not as per the approved Government policy and being a back door entry, no relief could be granted to him.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that an adverse inference should have been drawn against the respondent- Department as it has failed to produce the complete record pertaining to the muster-roll, ledger book, wages register etc. and therefore, the petitioner having worked from 1986 till 1996, was entitled for reinstatement.

(3.) A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that as per the demand notice served on 19.07.2001, the plea taken was that the petitioner was working since May, 1986 on daily wage basis as a Chowkidar with the respondent-Department and his services were terminated in April, 1996, without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act'). Prior to raising of the demand notice, he had filed a civil suit in 1998 which he withdrew on 17.04.2001. In the reply to the demand notice, specific stand was taken by the respondent-Department that the workman was a daily wager and he was never removed from service and had left it on his own after the work had finished and he had not worked for a period of one year prior to April, 1996 and that he had only worked for 30 days in the month of September, 1995. The industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court wherein the claim statement was filed on the same set of allegations which was contested on the ground that the workman had never worked for 240 days preceding his alleged termination in April, 1996 and had only worked in the month of September, 1995 for a period of 30 days. In the replication, the contents of the written statement were denied and it was stated that he continued working till April, 1996 and the Department had concealed the whole record of the period of his work.