BADRI ROY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner Badri Roy has challenged the award of the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City dated 8.10.1996 by which the Court has held that the Respondent Corporation, namely, M/s. Mica Trading Corporation of India Ltd., Giridih, was justified in removing the Petitioner Badri Roy from the services of the Corporation. According to the learned Counsel, the Petitioner Badri Roy was employed as daily rated workman by the Corporation M/s. Mica Trading Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') Giridih on 31.5.78 on daily wages basis find his services were terminated on 5.8.78. He was again appointed on 24.8.78 and again his services were terminated on 19.11.78. It is alleged that he was again appointed on 24.11.78 but lastly on 28.2.79 his services were terminated. Thereafter, the Corporation declared lock out of the factory. Ultimately the lock out was lifted and, thereafter, all the 35 casual workmen including the Petitioner were taken into service. Pursuant to the agreement entered into between the Respondent Corporation and the Union including the Government and out of 35 workmen the services of 34 workmen were taken by the Respondent Corporation except the Petitioner. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the decision of the Corporation raised Industrial Dispute which was referred to the Labour Court under Section 10(1)(c) of industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act'), in the following terms:

(2.) In this case learned Counsel for the Petitioner has challenged the award mainly on the ground that the relevant documents sought for by the Court below having not been produced, the Tribunal ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the Corporation. It is further submitted that the workman though has worked for 240 days yet the Corporation without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act, terminated the services of the Petitioner which is wholly illegal and unjust.

(3.) Admitted position in this case is that the workman Badri Roy was employed by the Corporation on daily wage basis and that too, for a particular period in order to fulfil the contract of the foreign purchasers. The workman concerned has been paid wages for the period for which he has worked. Judicial notice can be taken of the facts that the entire Mica Industries are now in a very precarious condition as no order is received from the foreign purchasers. Previously purchase orders were being received from the foreign purchasers and in order to comply with the order, the Corporation used to engage some casual workers on daily wage basis. The Corporation admittedly employed 35 such casual workers during the period, in question. Subsequently 34 casual workers were re-employed except the concerned workman namely, the Petitioner. As has been stated above, the Labour Court has considered the evidence both oral and documentary and come to a finding that the concerned workman has worked for 216 days only and, as such, he is not entitled to benefit of Section 25F of the Act. It is true that the attendance register for the period after 4.10.78 was not made available on record, the Court has come to a finding based upon the correct appraisal of the evidence, which cannot be interfered with by this Court sitting in its writ jurisdiction. No other point has been raised.