Babu Lal vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II and Others

Augustine George Masih, J.—The prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 27.09.2007 (Annexure-P-2), whereby the reference had been answered against the petitioner/Workman (hereinafter referred to as "the Workman"), holding him not entitled to any benefit as he has not been able to prove on record the fact that he had worked for 240 days in the 12 preceding months.

Counsel for the Workman contends that adverse inference should have been drawn against the respondents/Management (hereinafter referred to as "the Management") for non production of complete records. He states that only four muster rolls were produced before the Labour Court by the Management and the Management Witness specifically stated that he had produced the available muster rolls and, therefore, he contends that other muster rolls were not intentionally produced by the Management to deprive the Workman of his right under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and, thus, drawn of non adverse inference by the Labour Court against the Management is against law and not in accordance with law and, therefore, the Award deserves to be set aside.

On the other hand, counsel for the Management submits that only four muster rolls were issued for the work performed at Amar Pur Beat. All the said muster rolls were produced before the Labour Court and on the basis of those muster rolls, a specific finding has been recorded that the Workman had not completed 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months from the date of termination. He contends that as per direction issued by this Court on 22.02.2010, the complete records pertaining to the Amar Pur Beat, where the Workman states that he had performed duties, has been checked.

Affidavit of Shri O.P. Sharma, Divisional Forest Officer, Palwal, dated 18.02.2010 has been filed in the Court today, wherein he has specifically stated that except four muster rolls for the year, 1997, no other muster roll was issued during the relevant period, which would be from November 1996 to October, 1997 as the alleged date of termination from service of the Workman was 26.10.1997. One more muster roll for the period of October, 1996 was issued and even if 29 days of October, 1996 is taken into consideration which, although, is not relevant as it would be beyond 12 preceding months from the date of his termination, still the Workman has not completed 240 days in service with respondents. He on this basis states that the Award is fully justified and does not call for any interference by this Court.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

In the light of the Affidavit filed by Shri O.P. Sharma, Divisional Forest Officer, Palwal, wherein he has specifically stated that except four muster rolls for the year 1997, which had been produced before the Labour Court, no other muster roll was issued during the relevant period, according to which the Workman does not complete 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months, the findings as recorded by the Labour Court that the Workman has not completed more than 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination cannot be said to be without any basis or not based on the records. The contention of counsel for the petitioner that adverse inference should have been drawn for non production of the complete records, is also not acceptable for the reason that except four muster rolls, which were duly produced before the Labour Court, no other muster roll was issued for the Amar Pur Beat, where the petitioner alleged that he worked with the Management. That being so, question of non production of muster rolls during 12 preceding months does not arise. Award dated 27.09.2007 (Annexure-P-2), passed by the Labour Court-II, Faridabad, is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference by this Court.

Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.