CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present writ petition is to the award dated 25.10.2010 (Annexure P12) whereby respondent No. 2 -workwoman has been granted the relief of reinstatement along with full back wages by the Labour Court, Chandigarh.

(2.) A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that the case of respondent No. 2 -workwoman was that she had worked as a Sweeper on daily wage basis @ Rs. 500/ - per month in the Head Office 1, Post Office, Patiala under the administrative control of the Superintendent, Post Office, Patiala Division from 1984 to 1998. Her services were terminated in the month of November, 1998 and fresh candidates had been appointed and retained in service and therefore, she served the demand notice, after a period of 6 years, i.e., on 13.12.2004 (Annexure P1).

(3.) THE Labour Court, on the basis of the statement of the workwoman, came to the conclusion that the witness of the Management, who had been directed to come with the record for the period in question, had not got the same on the ground that the documents for the said period had been weeded out. It was noticed that the cash -book was a permanent document and the same had also been destroyed. Accordingly, an adverse inference was drawn against the petitioner -Department and it was held that they deliberately did not produce the relevant records in order to deprive the workwoman the benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act') as she was an illiterate lady who had worked for more than 14 years with the Management. Reliance was also placed upon the statement of Sh. K.K. Jain, Advocate who was residing near the Post -Office and had deposed that he had seen the workwoman working under the administrative control of the Senior Superintendent, Post Office, Patiala Division. It was also noticed that the witnesses of the Management admitted that there were 4 workers working in the office and accordingly, a direction was issued by the Labour Court to come with the record of the said 4 persons who were working as Sweepers in the Department but even the record of the said 4 persons were not produced. Accordingly, an adverse inference was drawn against the petitioner. The preliminary objection of delay was also rejected on the ground that there is no limitation prescribed under the Act and therefore, it being a beneficial piece of legislation, justice should not be denied to the workwoman only on this ground. Accordingly, reinstatement was directed and it was also held that she would be entitled to back wages, subject to enhanced rates.