Chief Engineer, RSDC, Irrigation Works, Punjab vs Amarjit Singh

Mehtab S. Gill, J.—In this writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have impugned the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur, copy Annexure P1, whereby the re-instatement of workman with continuity of service but without back wages has been ordered.

The grounds of challenge are that the respondent-workman did the work of unskilled Mazdoor only for 220 days and then left the job of his own accord; that after the completion of the projecl work, the respondent-workman was surplus and that the respondent-workman remained absent from duty for a period of about ten years.

The stand taken by the respondent-workman in the demand notice as well as in the statement of claims was that he worked as unskilled Beldar with effect from June 11, 1988 till July 31, 1989 when his services were illegally and wrongfully terminated despite his continuous service. He pressed into service infringement of Sections 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'').

We have heard Mr. Anil Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and perused the writ petition as also various annexures attached therewith.

Respondents''s witness MW-1 Amarjit Singh Sodhi, Sub Divisional Officer, who proved the muster roll record, Exhibits M-l and M-2, from May 2, 1989 to June 20, 1989, i.e. for 56 days, admitted that new hands were recruited after the workman left his job. It has been further proved by muster roll record from June 11, 1988 to November, 1988, Exhibit W-1, that the workman worked for 164 days. His name does not figure in the Store Division from January, 1989 to April. 1989 because the muster roll for the month of December, 1988 was not .prepared for want of work. Further, muster roll from serial Nos. 11 to 30 for the month of July. 1989 of various workmen is missing. Though the workman has asserted that he worked until July 31.1989, this was for the Management to prove and produce the entire record including the one which is in controversy as the record was in the custody of the employer.

This seems to be a case where the best evidence has been withheld by the Managnnent. Though the workman has completed 220 days calculated from June. 1988 to November, 1988 and May, 1989 to June, 1989, the benefit of missing page for the month of July, 1989 will have to be given to the workman. The respondent-workman has worked for more than 240 days and the Management has violated (he provision of Section 25F of the Act.

For the reasons recorded above, this petition has got no merit and it is, thus, dismissed.

Petition dismissed.