- (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition seeking the following relief:-- "(A) the impugned order dated 8th August, 2002 may kindly be quashed and set aside; and consequent to aforesaid by allowing this writ petition respondents may kindly be directed to pay to the petitioner the amount due to him and as prayed in application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act;" Facts in brief are that the petitioner was working as a daily wage/casual employee in the respondent Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as R.A.U.). He was retrenched without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under the industrial Disputes Act upon which he raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court, Bikaner accepted the claim filed by the petitioner by order dated 20.12.1993 and quashed the termination of the petitioner from service and directed the respondent R.A.U. to reinstate him with full back wages and continuity in service. It was further directed that if the employer failed to make payment of the dues as directed within a period of three months from the date of the award, the amount would carry interest @ 10% per annum. The petitioner claims that he was reinstated in pursuance of the Tribunal's award on 21.5.1994. However, the amount as directed to be paid to the petitioner in terms of the Tribunal's award was not reimbursed on which he filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in the Labour Court, Bikaner for enforcing the award. Specific facts and figures were pleaded by the petitioner regarding the salary drawn by him before his retrenchment based on calculations made on basis of facts available with him. He claimed a total sum of Rs. 1,53,432.70 and the interest accrued thereupon as salary/emoluments for the period between the date of his retrenchment to the date of his actual reinstatement. The respondents filed a reply to the said application which has been placed on record as Annexure-3 denying the averments made in the claim application. However, the amount which the petitioner claimed to be receiving as salary on the date of his retrenchment was not specifically disputed. Evidence was led on behalf of both the parties before the Tribunal. The petitioner stuck to the averments made in the application while leading evidence before the Tribunal. A chart Ex. W-19 was proved by him to establish the calculation and quantum of arrears to which he was entitled. In counter, one Vijay Kumar Bhatnagar was examined on behalf of the University. In his affidavit nothing was stated about the salary last paid to the petitioner as on the date of his retrenchment but a bare denial was offered to the effect that the petitioner was not entitled to receive the sum of Rs. 1,53,432.70 as stated in the application. In cross examination, the witness was confronted with the chart Ex. W-19 pertaining to the salary last drawn by the petitioner but and he feigned ignorance. The relevant portion of his cross examination is quoted below for ready reference:--
(2.) The Tribunal, however, dismissed the application vide order Annex. 6 dated 8.8.2002 which is under challenge in this writ petition. The Tribunal held that the petitioner failed to establish by proper evidence the exact salary being drawn by him on the date of his retrenchment. As such the application was dismissed for lack of particulars.
(3.) Mr. Saluja, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a chart Ex. W-19 mentioning the complete particulars of the pay etc. being drawn by the petitioner on the date of his retrenchment was submitted on record along with the application u/s. 33C(2) of the I.D. Act. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel has shown to the Court an order dated 18.7.1989 issued by the respondent University whereby extension was given to the petitioner and other similar employees who were employed by University on daily wage basis and the petitioner's pay was fixed at Rs. 880/- per month. Mr. Saluja submits that the salary was required to be revised when the 4th Pay Commission came into force and thus the calculation chart Ex. W-19 submitted by the petitioner in order to substantiate the prayer made in the application was fit to be accepted. He further contends that the respondents were seized of the documents and record pertaining to the petitioner's last drawn pay as on the date of his retrenchment. He contends that if at all the respondents were desirous of rebutting the petitioner's claim, in such a situation it is they who were required to produce the relevant record for the Tribunal's perusal. He contends that failure on part of the respondents to controvert the averments made in the application by producing the record required that adverse inference should have been drawn against them. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition deserves to be accepted and the respondents be directed to make payment of the amount due to the petitioner with interest accrued thereupon till date.;