S.S.SUDHALKAR, J. - (1.) This writ petition is filed by the employer challenging the award of the Labour Court dated September 1, 2000 (Copy Annexure P/I) vide which respondent No. 2/Workman was ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity of service and full back wages.
(2.) The workman was appointed in the year 1994 and he continued to work upto February, 1997. The first point argued by learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no evidence to show that the workman had completed 240 days of service. The Labour Court has dealt with this matter in para No. 7 of the award and it has relied on the documents Mark A to Mark L which are copies of the Muster rolls. They are photo copies. Counsel for the petitioners argued that these are photocopies and not the original. However, the original documents are in the custody of the petitioners, it was for the petitioners to produce the best evidence available with them, which the petitioners have chosen not to do. When this is so, adverse inference has to be drawn against the petitioners in view of the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Gopal Krishanji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif and others AIR 1968 SC 1413 coupled with this, photocopies have been produced by the workman himself, the management cannot take the stand that photo copies cannot be exhibited when the originals of which can be produced by the petitioners. Therefore, we hold that the workman has completed 259 days.
(3.) The next argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appointment of the workman was for a particular period and after the period elapsed, the appointment automatically came to an end by efflux of time. Therefore, there could be no retrenchment and the case is covered under. Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). He has cited the case of State of Rajasthan and others v. Rameshwar Lal Gahlot AIR 1996 SC 1001 : 1996 (1) SCC 595 : 1996-I-LLJ-888. It is observed by the Supreme Court in that case that when the appointment was for a fixed period it is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. It is observed by the Supreme Court mat unless there is a finding that power under clause (bb) of, Section 2(oo) was misused or vitiated by its mala fide exercise, it cannot be held that termination is illegal.;