JUDGMENT
Manju Goel, J.
1. The petitioner worked with the respondent as a Beldar. His services were terminated w.e.f. 30.9.1999. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred to Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No. III for adjudication. The terms of reference were “Whether the services of Shri Ramesh Kumar, S/o Shri Ram Sawroop have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respec?” The second terms of the reference were “Whether the workman was entitled to be regularised on the post of Beldar in proper pay scale from his initial date of joining and was also entitled to wages as is admissible to his regular counter-parts for the period from 1.6.90 to July, 1999 and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?”
2. The Labour Court by the judgment dated 21.2.2004 has given its verdict against the workman/petitioner namely that he has failed to establish that he ever worked with MCD/respondent at any time after 1993. The Award shows that the Labour Court was not sufficiently equipped with evidence since the MCD did not participate in the proceedings before the Labour Court and the workman could produce only certain documents which did not sufficiently prove his status in the MCD. It is contended on behalf of the workman that due to lack of information, the petitioner could not take appropriate steps to summon the Muster Roll and that since now he has procured a copy of the Muster Roll, he wants to produce it before the Labour Court.
3. On behalf of the respondent, however, it is submitted that the MCD does not have any documents in respect of the work put in by the petitioner. Petitioner, however, says that the respondent does have the documents and that the petitioner has been able to obtain these documents only from the respondent’s records. On behalf of the respondent it is stated that the matter be sent back to the Labour Court for adjudication afresh after taking into consideration the Muster Roll, a copy of which has been brought.
4. Since the whole issue depends upon the adjudication of questions of facts and since the petitioner has now been able to lay his hands on certain documents while the MCD, the actual custodian of records, is unable to assist the court with the records, it will be in the interest of justice to remand the matter back to the Labour Court.
5. The Award in question is, accordingly, set aside and the Labour Court is directed to give another opportunity to the parties to produce evidence and thereafter pass an award afresh.
6. The petition stands disposed of.
7. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 7th August, 2006.
