PUNJAB STATE FOREST DEVELOPMENT NIGAM LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, AMRITSAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No. 14678 of 2009

(2.) The Labour Court examined the issue relating to the number of days of service that the workman had put in with reference to the oral evidence tendered by the workman that he had been working from March, 1994 till 1998 and referred to the fact that the only document which had been produced by the management was the report of the Project Officer (Ex.M-2). Before the Labour Court, an attempt to secure the muster roll was made but the non-production of the same was explained by the management that the documents had been destroyed after a period of 3 years from the relevant years. The Labour Court reasoned that there were no proceedings for the destruction of the relevant records and rejected such a contention that the documents had been destroyed. Adverting to Ex.M-2, a report of the Project Officer, the witness was cross-examined on how the details of what he found in Ex.M-2, was prepared and to which the answer elicited was that there were no records on the basis of which the report of the Project Officer was based. Even the person, who had given the report was not examined. The Labour Court, therefore, drew an adverse inference against the management for non-production of the records and held that the workman had proved his engagement for 240 days.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a Project Officer could not have given a report without looking into records. The argument is neither here nor there. If the report has to be substantiated in a manner known to law, either the person who prepared the report must have been examined or the basis of preparation of the report, must be given to the Court. The report itself cannot be a primary evidence. The credibility of such a report will obtain value only by reference to the official records from where the data could have been collected to make the report. Admittedly, the basis for preparation of the reports was not mentioned either in the report itself nor was produced before the Court. Even as against the non-production of the muster roll for the relevant years, the contention that all the records had been destroyed was an irresponsible response that illbehoves a public body especially when the case had been pending. It was not as if the demand notice had been issued far beyond time. The alleged termination from service took place in the year 1998 and the demand notice came in July, 1998 itself.