CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

The Engineer-in-Chief, Haryana PWD B and R vs Vidya Devi

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 28 November 2000 · Citation: (2000) 11 P&H CK 0178

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.S. Sudhakar, J · Mehtab S. Gill, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 16279 of 2000
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 371 words

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—By this writ petition, the employer is challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 12.10.1999, copy Annexure P/4, vide which respondent No. 1 workman has been reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages.

2.

The case of the workman is that she had worked upto 13.9.1996 and after that her service were illegally terminated. Case of the petitioners is that the workman herself left the job and that she had worked upto the year 1993 only.

3.

The Labour Court has observed that the petitioner has not produced the relevant record to substantiate its stand that the workman had only worked upto the year 1993. The demand notice in this case, is given on 3.12.1996. In the claim statement, it is asserted by the workman that her services were terminated on 13.9.1996. It is pertinent to note that though this assertion has been made in the claim statement, yet it is not stated in the written statement before the Labour Court that the workman has worked only upto the year 1993.

4.

There was no reason to disbelieve the workman who had stated on oath that she had worked till 13.9.1996 when her services were terminated. The date of the demand notice also corroborate this statement of the witness.

5.

It was for the petitioners who were having best evidence to produce the same before the Labour Court. The petitioners could have from the evidence, shown and substantiated the case that the respondent did not work upto 1996. This is not done. Adverse inference is rightly drawn against the petitioners in view of the principles laid down in the case of Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar Vs. Mahomed Haji Latif and Others, .

6.

Moreover, when the petitioners were sure regarding the date till which the respondent workmen had served, no reason is forthcoming to show why the petitioners were shy to state the fact in the written state- ment before the Labour Court. Pleas taken up in the writ petition cannot be taken as substitute for the pleadings before the Labour Court.

We therefore, do not find any reason to interfere in the award of the Labour Court. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

7.

Petition dismissed.