Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited vs Ram Dhan

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—The Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (H.S.I.I.D.C.) has challenged the Labour Court award dated 30.04.2012 (P-3) reinstating the worker with continuity of service and 25% back wages payable from the date of demand notice. The case projected in the petition is that Ram Dhan-respondent was an employee of a labour contractor namely M/s. Citadat Security Services (C.S.S.) and was never engaged by the petitioner. No direct payment was made to the workman by the Corporation. Ram Dhan served from 01.02.2000 till 18.05.2005 when his services were terminated by an alleged verbal order of the Senior Manager of the Corporation. The mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") were breached as neither notice nor retrenchment compensation was paid at the time of retrenchment. The workman in his evidence produced photocopies of the attendance register totalling 64 pages which were produced on record as Mark-A to Mark AAL. The workman summoned WW-2 Alok Singh for production of record for the period 2000 to 2005. Despite summoning of record, WW-2 did not bring or produce the summoned record for the period 2000 to 2005. Though attendance register for the period 2003 to 2006 was brought. The Labour Court examined those documents produced and drew an adverse inference from the record not produced to reach the conclusion that both the ingredients were met, violation of Section 25-F and completion of 240 days of service within the meaning of Section 25-B of the Act.

In his own testimony while appearing as WW-1, the 2nd respondent testified that he worked as a Supervisor/Mate w.e.f. 01.02.2000 to 18.05.2005. He denied that he worked with C.S.S. In his cross examination, the Labour Court noticed that no suggestion was put to him that his services were terminated by C.S.S. There was failure on the part of the management to produce authentic record regarding attendance and salary disbursal to disprove the relationship of employer and employee.

In the result, the Labour Court after appreciating the evidence produced on record has thought fit in its discretion to nullify the termination and award reinstatement to service but has restricted back wages to 25% from the date of demand notice that is 03.02.2006.

Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while assailing the award relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in General Manager (OSD), Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills, Rajnandgaon Vs. Bharat Lal and Another, and a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Balwinder Singh v. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others, 2011(4) S.C.T. 231. Both the decisions are rendered in the background of employment through contractor and hold that onus relies upon the workman to prove direct recruitment and not through a contractor. I am afraid both the decisions are distinguishable on facts. In the present case, the workman produced 64 pages of the attendance register which may not have been exhibited but were marked documents. The onus then shifted on the management to disprove relationship of master and servant which it failed to discharge. The workman on whom burden of proof rested did the best possible thing available in the circumstances by summoning an employee of the Corporation for production of record. There was failure to do so on the part of the petitioner which is none less than a Government corporation expected to keep record, and by that time, onus had shifted on the management and it failed to discharge the onus. The Labour Court had no other option but to do what it did. The adverse inference drawn is legal and valid and based on acceptable reason. I find no ground to interfere with the award of the Labour Court and would dismiss the petition after having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length.