SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,J. - (1.) The petitioners in all the writ petitions have assailed the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jaipur. All the awards related to workmen who were all stated to have been removed on the same day i.e. 30.08.2006 and who were all working in similar capacity with the respondent. The awards have been passed on the same day i.e. 18.05.2015 by depicting the same facts and therefore all the writ petitions assailing the awards passed in the references have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the rejection of their reference and claim made before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court essentially on a sole ground which is common in all the cases. The main argument which has been raised by the petitioners' counsel is that while deciding the dispute the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court has held that the petitioner-workman could not prove from the documents that he had completed 240 days in the immediate preceding year before the date of his termination i.e. 30.08.2006. Learned counsel submits that all the workmen had appeared in the witness box and stated on affidavit that they had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding year and had actually been working with the respondents for the period between 3 years to 4 years. If we take the case of Ram Prasad, in that case the claimant has claimed that he was working since 25.05.2003 with the respondent. Similarly in other cases, the workmen had claimed that they had been working since 2003 of course from different dates.
(3.) Learned counsel submits that apart from having stated in the witness box, even during the conciliation proceedings, the respondents reply reflected that the petitioners had worked for more than 240 days. However in the reply it was mentioned that the muster rolls were prepared and attendance of the workman was being noted. In view thereof, an application was moved before the Labour Court praying for calling the record from the respondents. Vide order dated 23.09.2010, the Labour Court directed the respondents to produce the muster rolls, attendance register of the workmen or may file an affidavit of the concerned Officer relating to this said attendance register or muster rolls. It is the case of the petitioner that the in spite of the said order, record was not produced nor any affidavit relating to the record was filed by the management respondents. In spite of the fact that on affidavit, the petitioner had claimed that he had worked for more than 240 days, without adverting to the said order dated 23.09.2010, the Labour Court has proceeded to pass and award rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the entire onus of proving that the petitioners had worked more than 240 days lies on the workmen and the documents which he had produced gave two different versions of the number of days and therefore provisions of 25-F were held to be not applicable on the workmen.;