Attar Singh vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hisar

S.S. Nijjar, J.—This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks the issuance of writ of certiorari/mandamus/any other order or direction quashing the impugned award dated 29.8.2000 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as ''the Labour Court'') whereby the reference has been answered in favour of the Management holding that it cannot be said that the termination of the services of the petitioner was not in order or unjustified.

Petitioner was appointed as a daily wager in the month of July, 1992. His work and conduct was satisfactory. He had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. His services were terminated on 30.12.1996 without following the procedure prescribed under Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). It was also the case of the workman that no charge sheet or show cause notice was served upon him before the termination order was made. The Management pleaded that the workman has not completed 240 days and, therefore, it was not necessary to comply with the provisions of Section 25 of the Act. The workman appeared in support of the case put forward by him as WW1. It is specifically noticed in the award that despite availing many opportunities, management did not examine any witnesses and ultimately by order dated 8.2.2000, the defence of management was struck off. The Labour Court framed the following issues :-

Whether termination of the service of Attar Singh is justified and in order ? If not, alongwith reinstatement to what amount of back wages, he is entitled to ?

Whether the petitioner did not turn up to work after July, 1995 ?

Relief.

Inspite of holding that the management has failed to adduce any evidence, the Labour Court holds that the best piece of evidence was the record of the management which the workman should have summoned. No such step was taken. The bare statement made by the workman was not sufficient unless corroborated by documentary evidence.

I have heard the counsel for the parties at length. I am of the opinion that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar Vs. Mahomed Haji Latif and Others, . In the aforesaid judgmental is categorically held that the party in possession of best evidence which would throw light on the issue in controversy has to adduce evidence in the Court. If the evidence is not adduced, the Court ought to draw an adverse inference against him notwithstanding that onus of proof does not lie on him. The Supreme Court further held that it is not a sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court best evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon the issues in controversy and to rely upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof. The aforesaid judgment has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in The Engineer-in-chief, Haryana and another v. Smt. Vidya Devi and another 2001(2) AIJ 114 : 2001(2) SCT 241 (P&H) (DB) and in The Gurdaspur Coop. Sugar Mills v. Dalbir Singh and another 2001(1) RSJ 648 : 2001(3) SCT 77 (P&H).

In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned award suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. The Labour Court ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the management on not producing the evidence which would have shown that the workman had not worked for 240 days in a year preceding the termination of his services.

Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned award is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court for deciding the reference afresh after giving an opportunity to the respondent-management to adduce the documentary evidence. It is made clear that if the management even after remand fails to adduce the necessary documentary evidence, an adverse inference shall be drawn against the management. No costs. Let the reference be decided within a period of two months of the receipt of copy of this order.

Petition allowed.