Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) COMMISSIONER Municipal Council, Tonk by way of this writ petition has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court dated 8.3.2006 whereby Labour Court answered the reference made to it by the appropriate Government holding termination of the Respondent -workman with effect from 1.11.1997 bad in law and entitled him to reinstatement in service with continuity but without back wages. Shri J.K. Singhi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that Respondent -workman (for short, "workman") miserably failed to prove that he actually worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of retrenchment. Burden of proof was on the workman and, therefore, the Labour Court could not rely on the statement of witnesses of the management. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that reference was made to the Labour Court three years after retrenchment and, therefore, relief of reinstatement ought not to have been granted. It was argued that workman was given appointment under the Nehru Rojgar Yojna and the scheme having come to an end, in any case, there was no question of his reinstatement.
(2.) SHRI M.F. Baig, learned Counsel for the workman opposed the writ petition and submitted that Labour Court has recorded a finding of fact that Petitioner continuously worked for 240 days with effect from 1.11.1995 to 31.10.1997 and this fact was admitted by none other than the own witness of the management i.e. Shri R.C. Jain. Reference is made to cross -examination of Shri R.C. Jain, certified copy of which, is on record as Ann.R.1/1. It was argued that management also failed to prove the fact that the workman was engaged in the Nehru Rojgar Yojana. On delay, learned Counsel submitted that on consideration of this fact, learned Labour Court has already moulded the relief of reinstatement denying back wages to the workman. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and perused the material on record.
(3.) A reading of cross -examination of Shri R.C. Jain makes it amply clear that he admitted in categorical terms that the Respondent -workman was engaged with the Petitioner for the period with effect from 1.11.1995 to 31.10.1997 in Nehru Rojgar Yojana and also in other schemes. Not only this, the witness further admitted that workman was paid salary for the period from 1.11.1995 to 31.9.1997. He was engaged on muster roll of the Municipal Council but all muster rolls could not be filed. Learned Judge Labour Court recorded a finding that though the management has asserted that the workman was working under Nehru Rojgar Yojana but some of the muster rolls produced by them could not indicate that he was actually working under such scheme. Even witness Shri R.C. Jain in his statement stated that workman was working under both, Nehru Rojgar Yojana as well as other schemes too. Contention that since reference was made after three years immediately preceding the retrenchment, Labour Court ought not to have directed reinstatement, cannot be accepted because delay of three years is not such an enormous delay for which relief of reinstatement can be denied. In any case, Labour Court had already moulded the relief by denying the back wages to the workman finding him worked for 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of retrenchment. Unless and until, findings of fact as recorded by Labour Court shown to be contrary to the evidence on record or without any basis, same cannot be interfered by this Court. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.;