IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.2999 of 2003
Date of decision:16.11.2009
The Sonepat Coop. Sugar Mills Limited, Sonepat through its managing
Director. ... Petitioner
Versus
Rajesh and another ...Respondents
Present: Mr. Pawan Kumar Mutneja, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate, for the respondent.
----
II. COCP No.348 of 2006 in CWP No.2999 of 2003.
Rajesh ...Petitioner
Versus
Prithi Singh Bishnoi, Managing Director, the Sonepat Cooperative Sugar
Mill Limited, Sonepat. ...Respondent
Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Pawan Kumar Mutneja, Advocate, for the respondent.
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?
----
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
I. Civil Writ Petition No.2999 of 2003
1. The award under challenge is a direction for reinstatement
with back wages. The contention of the workman was that he had been
Civil Writ Petition No.2999 of 2003 -2-
working as a computer assistant on daily basis from 01.12.1998 to
15.09.1999. He adduced evidence to the effect that a person junior to
him namely, Narender was retained even after he was terminated from
service. It was also his contention that the computer works for the whole
year and the work was available at the establishment where the workman
was working.
2. The management contended that the workman had worked
only for 123 days and he did not produce attendance register for some
months. It was elicited in cross-examination of MW-1 that the original
record from January to May, 1999 was available with the management
but was not produced. It was also elicited in the cross-examination of
MW-1 that the computer works for the whole year and it was sought to
be explained by the management that the work was done on contract
basis but the so-called contract was not produced before the Labour
Court, although he stated that he had brought all the records of contract
before Court. The Labour Court, under such circumstances, drew an
adverse inference for the non-production of the record which admittedly
the management possessed and found that the contention of the workman
that he had continuously worked for 240 days, stood established and
granted the relief as prayed for.
3. The learned counsel Shri Mutneja appearing for the
management states that the burden of proof was always on the workman
to establish that he had 240 days of continuous service and the onus will
not be discharged on a mere statement in evidence by the workman.
According to him, the workman would have availed of leave during the
Civil Writ Petition No.2999 of 2003 -3-
period which would have enabled him to secure some documentary
evidence or he ought to at least produced wage slips during the relevant
period when he was claiming that he was working.
4. The learned counsel refers to a decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Range Forest Officer Versus S.T.Hadimani-(2002) 3
Supreme Court Cases 25, and states that the said decision was a clear
authority for the proposition that the burden of proof could not be said to
have been effectively discharged by mere assertion before the Labour
Court by the workman that he had worked for 240 days. The issue that
the burden of proof was on the workman to prove that he had worked for
240 days of continuous service cannot be doubted at all and the said
decision cannot be extended beyond stating what was clearly a
fundamental principle of law. How this burden is discharged is
invariably a matter of adjudication. In this case, the workman has
asserted that he had worked for 240 days and did not merely stop there.
He elicited through evidence of the management that it had the
documents in its custody from January to June, 1999. The cause for non-
production of the records, was not explained. There was also evidence to
the effect that the work on computers was a continuous one and it was
available right through the year. The Court drew an inference which was
adverse to the management from the available evidence and in my view,
it was perfectly justified. It will be futile to contend that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court’s judgment must be applied in every situation to look for
proof without regard to what was admitted in evidence by
the management. The inference which was drawn by the Labour Court,
Civil Writ Petition No.2999 of 2003 -4-
under the circumstances, was not adverse to the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, I reject the contention of the learned
counsel that the workman had not worked for 240 days and that no
adverse inference could be drawn as made by the Labour Court.
5 The relief granted by the Labour Court was justified and the
writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
II. COCP No.348 of 2006 in CWP No.2999 of 2003
6 COCP No.348 of 2006 is an application for contempt of the
order dated 24.04.2003 made in Civil Writ Petition No.2999 of 2003
which directed the management to reinstate the workman and that if the
petitioner (management) failed to reinstate the workman before the next
date, it would forfeit the right to be heard on the merits of the case. The
reinstatement was reported to have been made on 11.06.2003. The
explanation given by the management for the delay was that at the end of
the season, like all other workmen, he (workman) had also been
discharged. The explanation given by the management is accepted and
the contempt petition is dismissed.
(K.KANNAN)
16.11.2009 JUDGE
sanjeev