P.B. Bajanthri, J. - (1.) In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the award passed by the Labour court dated 31.05.2010. The petitioner is stated to have been appointed as a Salesman on 28.10.1998 on daily-wage basis in the Gram Shilp, Khadi Gramodyog Ayog, Mission Chowk, Sonepat. His services were terminated on 28.07.2001. Industrial dispute was raised and referred. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat passed Award on 31.05.2010 vide Annexure P-9. Claim of the petitioner was declined on the score that he did not fulfil the condition that he was not continuously worked for 240 days and also relying on decision of the Apex Court reported in 2002(3) SCC 25 titled as Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani noting:- that mere filing of affidavit by the workman, being only his own statement in his favour, cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in a year.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has worked for more than 240 days. In this regard, he has submitted an application before the Labour Court for supply of documents from the respondent-Management on 21.05.2003. Details are as under:- 1. Sari Counting Register (Stock) from 1999 to 2001. 2. Detail of the amount deposited in the bank on daily basis from 01.09.2000 to July, 2001. 3. Cashmemo (a) Cotton Khadi, (b) Gram Udyog (c) Silk (From 1999 to 2001) 4. Sales Register (From 1999 to 2001) 5. Payment Vouchers (from 1999 to 2001) 6. Cash Book, Ledger Book etc (from 1999 to 2001)
(3.) Despite request for production of documents cited above, the Management failed to produce before the Labour Court. Perusal of Annexure P-6 examination of WW-1 Subhash Chand, it is evident that petitioner was working. The management-respondents have failed to produce documents. However, while examination of WW-2 Geeta Singh, it is evident that petitioner was discharging certain duties and even the signatures of the petitioner has been supported by WW-2 Geeta Singh vide Annexure P8. Therefore, the Labour Court erred in holding that petitioner has not made out a case that he had worked for 240 days, is incorrect. Had the Tribunal insisted the Management for production of documents which were summoned by the petitioner It would have been evident that petitioner had fulfilled the condition of 240 days continuous work. It was further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the decision of Supreme Court in Range Forest Officer's case (Supra) is distinguishable for the reasons that there the workman has filed only affidavit whereas in the present case, petitioner has summoned certain documents which are with the Management and who are custodian of those records. The same have not been produced. Therefore, the Labour Court award is liable to be set aside.;