HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RASHID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the employer has challenged the award dated August 14, 2000 (Copy annexure P -l) vide which respondent No, i was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages from the dale of demand notice.

(2.) THE case of respondent No. 1 is that he was appointed as a Belder w.e.f. August 17. 1993 and rendered service continuously up to September 17, 1994. The petitioner had taken up a stand that respondent No. 1 had worked on daily wage basis from September 17. 1993 to April 30, 1994 and that he had not worked for 240 days. The witness, namely, Dharm Pal, MW -1 could not say whether respondent No, 1 had worked for all in August, 1993, May, 1994 to July, 1994, Moreover, respondent No. 1 has stated that he had worked from August 17, 1993 to September 6, 1994. It is found by the Labour Court that no cogent evidence was led by the management to prove that respondent No. 1 did not work for a period of 240 days. The Labour Court has further observed that the statement of respondent No. 1 has been corroborated by Darshan Kumar, who has been examined as W.W -2. Darshan Kumar is an official of the petitioner. He has admitted the signatures of respondent No. 1 against certain entries dated May 6, 1994, May?. 1994, May 10, 1994, May 14,1994 and May 31,1994. This witness had not brought with him T.M.R, of May, 1994. The Labour Court has observed that if he would have brought the relevant record as summoned by respondent No. 1, truth could have come out. Since the record has not been produced, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the management. We do not find any infirmity in the finding of the Labour Court because the principle which the Labour Court had applied is already laid down by the Supreme Court way back in the year 1968 in the case of Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohammed llaji Latif and others, A.I.R. 196S S.C. 1413.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has further argued that in some of the muster rolls, the name of father of respondent No. 1 has been differently mentioned. However, evidence to this effect was not led before the Labour Court and when petitioner's official had made some admission in favour of respondent No. 1, we do no find it proper to interfere with the award of the Labour Court.