Narmail Singh vs The Presiding Officer and Others

Rajesh Bindal, J.—This order will dispose of five writ petitions bearing CWP Nos. 17459, 18065, 18383, 19043 and 19044 of 2011, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. Facts have been extracted from CWP No. 17459 of 2011.

Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 18.04.2011, whereby the learned Labour Court dismissed the claim of the petitioner-workman on the ground that there is no evidence produced by the petitioner.

Briefly, the pleaded facts are that the petitioner joined as Labourer on daily wages on 01.02-2002 with respondents No. 2 to 4/management and continued to work as such till 06.09.2009. When his services were terminated, the petitioner served a demand notice dated 31.12.2009 upon the management. The conciliation proceedings before the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer failed and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court.

In order to prove his case, the petitioner summoned Rishi Pal Malik, Asstt. O/o D.F.O., Ambala along with all relevant records. The witness came present on 07.03.2011 before the learned Labour Court and got recorded his statement to the effect that the summoned record had been destroyed in floods on 06.07.2010 and 07.07.2010 and further stated that a DDR was lodged in that regard. After considering the statement made by the witness, the learned Labour Court vide its order dated 07.03.2011, closed the evidence of the petitioner by order of the court and adjourned the case for the evidence of the management for 21.03.2011 and then 04.04.2011 but no evidence was produced by the management. Thereafter the learned Labour Court vide its award dated 18.04.2011 dismissed the claim of the petitioner. The same has been impugned before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner served the management from 01.02.2002 to 06.09.2009, when his services were abruptly terminated in violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"). He further submitted that learned Labour Court did not appreciate that the petitioner''s case is totally dependent upon the record, which is in custody of the respondents/management and the official witness summoned by him stated that the entire record had been destroyed in flood. In such a situation he should have been granted further opportunity to produce other evidence in support of his claim. Vide award dated 18.04.2011, the learned Labour Court dismissed the claim of the petitioner solely on the ground that there is no evidence produced by the petitioner without considering the fact that he had sought an adjournment for producing his evidence. The approach of the learned Labour Court was highly technical. The petitioner be granted further opportunity to lead evidence by setting aside the award of the Labour Court.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the Forest Department is not an industry and the provisions of the Act are not applicable in the present case. He further submitted that the workman had voluntarily abandoned the job at his own sweet will, hence, he is not entitled to any kind of relief. He further submitted that the petitioner has not worked for 240 days with the management during preceding twelve months, before his alleged termination.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

The record of the Labour Court, Ambala was summoned to peruse the interlocutory orders. The relevant orders are reproduced hereunder:-

Order dated 12.01.2011

Summon witness Sh. Rishi Pal, Asstt. O/o DFO Ambala is present but has not brought the requisite record. His statement is recorded. Heard. The witness is bound on with the directions to bring the requisite record on the next date of hearing. Further no evidence of the workman is present despite last opportunity. Adjournment is requested and opposed. The statement of rep. of the workman is recorded. Heard. The workman is granted one more opportunity to lead his evidence failing which the evidence of the workman would be deemed to be closed on the next date of hearing.

Now to come up on 9.2.2011 for the evidence of the workman.

Order dated 9.2.2011

Summoned witness Sh. Rishi Pal, Asstt. is present but has not brought the entire requisite record again. Adjournment is requested and opposed. Heard. The witness is burdened with cost of Rs. 500/- and is bound down with the direction to bring the entire requisite record on the next date of hearing. No other evidence of the workman is also present. The workman is bound only to examine this witness. Now to come up on 7.3.2011 for evidence of the workman.

A perusal of the zimni orders dated 12.01.2011 and 09.02.2011 shows that the witness, namely, Rishi Pal Malik was present in the Court on both dates but did not bring the entire requisitioned record and adjournment was sought both times. On 09.02.2011, the witness was burdened with cost of Rs. 500/- and was bound down with a direction to bring the entire requisite record on the next date of hearing i.e. 07.03.2011. On the said date, the witness Rishi Pal Malik got recorded his statement that summoned record had been destroyed in the flood on 06.07.2010 and 07.07.2010 and further stated that a DDR was lodged in that regard, therefore, the petitioner was left with no alternative but to pray for an adjournment for producing other evidence to substantiate his claim but the learned court below vide order dated 07.03.2011, closed the evidence of the petitioner and adjourned the case for the evidence of the management.

In the case in hand, no doubt that the petitioner took five opportunities to lead his evidence but it was on the last opportunity i.e. on 07.03.2011, when he came to know that the official record of the case had been destroyed in flood, which was in the custody of the management, hence, he was left with no other option but to seek an adjournment for producing other evidence. In these kind of cases no straight jacket formula can be adopted for granting opportunities to the parties to lead their evidence. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case especially in the matters of the labour disputes, the Court should adopt a liberal approach. Accordingly, the impugned awards of the learned court below are set aside and the petitioners are granted two opportunities to conclude their evidence and directed to appear before the learned Labour Court on 17.10.2012 for further proceedings.

All the petitions stand disposed of, accordingly.