S.S. Sudhalkar, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed by the employer challenging the award' dated April 7, 2000 (copy Annexure P -1) vide which respondent No. 1 was ordered to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits and full back wages from the date of demand notice.
(2.) THE case of respondent No. 1 was that he worked from January 1, 1989 to April 1, 1997 when his service, was terminated. The case of the petitioners is that respondent No. 1 had worked from November, 1990 till April, 1996 and thereafter he had left the job of his own. The Labour Court has found that respondent No. 1 had worked upto April, 1997. No evidence has been shown to us from which it can be derived that the petitioners had tried to show that respondent No. 1 did not work between the April 1996 and April, 1997. The evidence could have been produced by the petitioners, but the best evidence has been withheld. Therefore, non -production of best evidence will lead to an adverse inference against the petitioners in view of a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohammed Haji Latif and others, : A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1413. Therefore, we do not find any fault with the finding of the Labour court that the respondent No. 1 had not worked between the April, 1996 and April, 1997. The case of the petitioners was that respondent No. 1 had abandoned his job. Demand notice is of dated July 22, 1997. This shows that the demand notice was given within a reasonable time after the alleged termination. If he had really left his job, as alleged, there was no reason for him to issue the demand notice in the very year after a few months. Therefore, we do not find any fault with the finding of the Labour Court that service of respondent No. I was terminated in April, 1996.
(3.) REGARDING back wages, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Labour Court has erred in granting full back wages. However, in view of the length of service of respondent No. 1 and the back wages being awarded from the date of demand notice, we do not find any reason to interfere with the award of back wages. It has also not been shown to us that during the enforced period of unemployment of respondent No. 1, he was gainfully employed. As a result, this writ petition is without merit and is dismissed.;