- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner State is aggrieved against the award dated 7. 9. 95 by which the reference has been answered in favour of the respondent employee holding it that giving of promotion to the respondent employee on the post of Store Munshi from 1. 10. 68 was valid or not ? If it was valid, then what relief should have been granted.
(3.) IT appears that the employee's service roll was also produced wherein there is specific entry that he was appointed as Store Munshi by the executive Engineer (B and R), Barmer in the pay scale provided for Store Munshi. This fact is not in dispute and the contention of the present petitioners before the Labour Court was that in fact, the employee was given appointment on the post of Mate and temporarily he was given work of road Mistry in famine relief work and then again, he was sent back on the post of Mate. However, the respondents could not produce any document on record in support of this plea neither appointment on the post of Mate nor on the post of road Mistry. No muster-roll was produced by the petitioner employer. The Labour Court after considering the oral statement of the petitioners' witnesses held that bald statement cannot be relied upon against the documentary evidence and that too, an entry made in the service record.;