DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER Vs. BHARAT SINGH ALIAS BHARTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated May 19, 2006 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Industrial tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, wherein the reference has been answered in favour of the workman holding him entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and other consequential benefits with 50 per cent back wages from the date of issuance of demand notice i. e. December 22, 2000 till the date of publication of the award and full wages thereafter till reinstatement.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that the award passed by the Labour Court holding the workman to have completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months, cannot be sustained as an adverse inference has been wrongly drawn by the Labour Court. He contends that cash books mark 'b' to mark 'v' of June and July 1999, which were produced in the Court but the Court has drawn an adverse inference on the ground that the original cash books have not been produced by the respondents and has further gone to hold that the cash books have been withheld deliberately so that the workman could not prove that he has worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months which is the requirement of Section 25-F of the Industrial disputes Act for granting him benefit therein. He contends that the records which were called for by the Labour Court on an application moved by the workman, did not specifically say that the original records were to be produced. He, therefore, contends that the records and photocopies of the same have been produced before the Labour Court.

(3.) THIS contention of counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The records when called for by the Labour Court are always the original records. In case the original records are not produced and photocopies thereof have been produced, the onus is on the person producing those documents to show why he is unable to produce the original records. A perusal of the award would show that the onus which was therefore on the management-petitioner to show non production of original records have not been discharged by them as no reason whatsoever for non production of the original records have been given by the management-petitioner. The inference therefore drawn adversely against the management-petitioner is quite justified and in accordance with law. Further submission has been made by counsel for the petitioner that the labour Court has not disbelieved the documents and has only proceeded on the presumption that since the original records have not been produced, therefore, an adverse inference is required to be drawn against the management-petitioner.