THE VICE PRESIDENT Vs. PROJECT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by award dated 15.03.2013 in Reference Case Nos. 13, 14 & 15/2007, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) THE brief facts stated in the writ petition are that, the union namely, C.C.L. Janta Mazdoor Sangh raised an industrial dispute for regularization of the concerned workmen, in which the appropriate Government passed order dated 07.03.2007 under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide, Ref. No. 13/2007, Ref. No. 14/2007 and Ref. No. 15/2007. Before the Industrial Tribunal, the attendance -sheet for the year, 2001 and 2002 were produced and, an application dated 20.04.2011 was filed seeking a direction upon the Management of M/s. C.C.L to produce the entire attendance register of the concerned workmen. However, the Industrial Tribunal did not call for the record of the concerned workmen and passed award dated 15.03.2013 whereby, the aforesaid references have been answered against the workmen.

(3.) FROM the materials brought on record, it is apparent that on behalf of the concerned workmen in support of their claim that they have been in continuous service under M/s. C.C.L, attendance registers for the year, 2001 and 2002 have been produced. The finding recorded by the Industrial Tribunal that the concerned workmen worked for a period of 146 days in the year, 2001 and for a period of 104 days in the year, 2002, has not been disputed by the petitioner -Union. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner -Union that since the attendance register was not produced by the Management of M/s. C.C.L, an adverse inference should have been drawn against the Management, is liable to be rejected. In the present case, on behalf of the workmen attendance registers for the years, 2001 and 2002 were produced. Employees of M/s. CCL who have allegedly signed the registers produced by the Union, were not examined. The Labour Court has found that the register for the year, 2001 was for the period from 07.01.2001 to 28.04.2001 and it contained shift -wise duty on the working days such as, 4/12. The attendance register written as "Pilot Guard Register" is for the period between 09.12.2001 and 27.04.2002 and it also does not reflect regular work by the workmen. The Management has taken a stand that the coal products are mechanically loaded with the help of Pay Loader Machines at the R.C.M. sliding. The coal is loaded at about 10 kms. away from the project. In the pleading the workmen claimed that they were working for the past 12 years whereas, the witness (WW1) stated in the court that the workmen were working for the last more than 15 years. No substantial piece of evidence was produced on behalf of the workmen to establish their engagement with M/s. CCL. In view of the specific stand taken by the management and the paucity of evidence produced on behalf of the workmen, the Industrial Tribunal rightly refused to draw adverse inference against the management. It was for the Union to produce cogent and reliable evidence in support of the claim that the concerned workmen had been working for the past 12/15 years and only after the case of the workman is found probable, a direction could have been issued by the Industrial Tribunal to M/s. CCL to produce the attendance register. It was for the Union to plead and prove its case and by drawing adverse inference an award against the management of M/s. CCL cannot be made, directing M/s. CCL to regularise the service of the concerned workman. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is for the workmen to produce the materials substantiating their claim of continuous service under the Management. The Management of M/s. C.C.L is not excepted to produce evidence in support of the claim of the concerned workmen rather, it was for the petitioner -Union to produce such record.