High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
State of U.P. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Varanasi , & another - WRIT - A No. 33706 of 2000  RD-AH 38 (13 March 2003)
COURT NO. 24
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33706 of 2000
State of U.P. --------- Petitioner
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Varanasi
& another -------- Respondents.
Hon'ble Dr. B.S.Chauhan, J.
This writ petition has been filed against the Award dated 20.12.1999, by which the claim of the respondent workman has been allowed by the learned Labour Court.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that respondent workman raised the industrial dispute and the appropriate Government made a reference as to whether the termination of the services of the workman w.e.f. 1.9.1994 was in accordance with law, and if not, to what relief he was entitled to?. In pursuance of the reference, the workman filed the claim petition contending that he had been appointed as a class IV employee on muster roll in March, 1991 till 31st August, 1991 and 1st February, 1993 to 31st August, 1994. His services have been terminated w.e.f. 11th September, 1994 orally in violation of the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as the Act 1947 only). The management petitioner contested the case submitting that he had not worked 240 days in a calendar year counting backward from the date of retrenchment, and he was not entitled for any relief. However, inspite of order of the Labour Court the management did not produce the muster roll, and therefore, the Labour Court recorded the finding of fact that the workman had completed 240 days in a calendar year counting backward from the date of termination and passed the impugned Award directing the employer to pay full back wages.
Before this Court, similar contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the parties. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy the Court as under what circumstance inspite of the order of the Labour Court the relevant muster roll of the workman was not produced. In view of the provisions of Section 114, Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, the Labour Court was justified to draw the adverse inference against the employer, and with limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India no interference is called for.
However considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as the Labour Court has not recorded any finding of fact as to whether during the period remaining out of service, the workman was gainfully employed somewhere, nor the workman had led any evidence whatsoever before the Labour for inspite of his best efforts, he could not get any work, or he has not worked for remuneration anywhere the Award is modified to the extent that the workman shall be entitled for 50% of the back wages w.e.f. 1st January, 1998 to the date of the Award.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.