The Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial) vs Smt. Birmati

Augustine George Masih, J.—Prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 20.11.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Rohtak vide which the reference has been answered against the petitioner-Management and in favour of respondent No. 1- workman holding her entitled to continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 26.5.1999.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court has totally misdirected itself while considering the evidence on record. He contends that as per the Award, the muster rolls from July 1992 to June 1994 were not produced by the Management. Non-production of this record has been made the basis for drawing an adverse inference against the Management. The record which was relevant for determining as to whether the workman had completed more than 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months was from May 1998 to April 1999. The Labour Court has not touched this aspect as to whether these records were available with the Labour Court or not or the said records were either summoned and not produced by the Management. The relevant period having not been taken into consideration by the Labour Court, the Award passed by the Labour Court and the inference so drawn by it cannot be sustained.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submits that the adverse inference has been drawn by the Labour Court due to non- production of the records. He contends that even the workman-witness, namely, Hari Kishan, Forester, Office of DFO Bhiwani, who was summoned as WW-3 also did not produce the records and, thus, the adverse inference drawn by the Labour Court is fully justified and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

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

A perusal of the impugned Award would show that the Labour Court has drawn an adverse inference only due to non-production of the muster rolls from July 1992 to June 1994. Not even a single word has been referred to in the Award as to whether the subsequent muster rolls/record were produced by the Management or not. The relevant period i.e. 12 months prior to the date of the termination, has not been taken into consideration by the Labour Court while drawing an adverse inference against the Management. The said period would be from May 1998 to April 1999. The Labour Court has not even suggested that for this period, whether there was any record available or it was summoned but not produced by the Management.

In the light of the above position, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Rohtak dated 20.11.2007 (Annexure P-1) is hereby set aside. The case is remanded to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication.

The parties are directed to appear before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak on 30.3.2010.