SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE matter has been heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for parties.
(2.) THE petitioner in the instant writ petition has assailed the award dated June 25, 2003 passed by Labour Court Kota whereby the reference made to it was answered in favour of respondent workman and it was held that the termination order dated November 8, 1983 of respondents workman was illegal and the workman shall be reinstated in the services with continuity of service but without back wages. Mr. H. V. Nandwana, Dy Govt. Advocate contended that the respondent workman himself left the service and he failed to discharge the burden that he had worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year but the Labour Court answered the award without properly considering the law of burden of proof. He further urged that the workman was not entitled for any relief as he raised the claim after 11 years of the termination. Reliance is placed on Divisional Forest Officer vs. Raghuvar and Anr. 2002 (1) WLC (Raj.) 501 = (RLW 2002 (3) Raj. 1374 ). Learned counsel for the workman supported the award and placed reliance on Ajaib Singh vs. The Sirhind Cooperative Marketing cum Processing Service Society Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 1351 and Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar vs. Mohammed Haji Latif, AIR 1968 SC 1413. Having considered the submissions and on scanning the record, I notice that the impugned finding of the learned Labour Court is based on the document From 1 filed by the petitioner itself wherein the respondent workman was shown to have worked for 264 days July 1982 to March 1983. In regard to non production of documents by the petitioner, the adverse inference was rightly drawn in view of ratio indicated in Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar vs. Mohammed Haji Lalit (supra ). Arguments in regard to delay was also considered and back wages were not awarded to the respondent workman after placing reliance on Ajaib Singh vs. The Sirhind Cooperative Marketing cum Processing Service Society Ltd. (supra ). The case of Divisional Forest Officer vs. Raghuvar (supra) on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the instant case. In that case Labour Court failed to properly consider the objection regarding delay in raising the dispute and therefore the award was set aside.
(3.) I find no infirmity in the impugned award. The petitioner was in possession of best evidence which could throw light on the issue in controversy but the evidence was withheld therefore the learned Labour Court rightly drew adverse inference against the petitioner although the onus of proof did not lie on it. The petitioner in my opinion, can not rely on abstract doctrine of onus of proof in the fact and circumstances of that case. I do not find it a fit case for invoking Article 227 of the Constitution. For these reasons, the writ petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed without any order as to costs. The petitioners shall ensure compliance of the award within sixty days from today. .;