IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6657 of 2000 SHIV SHANKAR CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES INDIA)Ltd) at Raipura Rajoun P.S. Rajoun Dist. Banka now known as M/s SC I India Ltd through its Director Sri Shiv Kumar Kishorpuria Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4 19.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In a proceeding under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act when the petitioner employer had itself not denied the plea of the concerned six workmen to have worked 240 days continuously and the evidence adduced by the parties were sufficient to establish the fact that the workmen had been associated from the erection and construction work beginning in the year 1988 and continuing upto 1996, there was absolutely no scope for the Labour Court to arrive at any other conclusion save and except that six workmen had been associated for a period of almost 12 years in the employment of the petitioner. Mr Satyabir Bharti, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has tried to rely on paragraph 7 of the written statement to submit that there was a plea of six workmen to have not worked even for a period of 240 days. Unfortunately paragraphs 7 and 8 read together would - 2 - actually go to show that the view taken by the Labour court in this regard was the only possible view in as much as Paragraphs 7 and 8 read as follows:- “That the concerned workmen have alleged that they were working since 1984, whereas the Factory commenced production from 18th April,1988 is an ample proof that they were casual labours engaged in the work of erection and civil construction of the proposed factory, and after over of the work, they automatically got terminated. That Civil Construction and erection work of the factory continued upto 15th March, 1996 in which they were engaged as labourers on daily wages as such when the work was over, they were paid full wages being unattached labourers.” In the background of the aforesaid admitted position and there being no contrary evidence with regard to the workmen having been not employed or for worked continuously for 240 days, there was inescapable conclusion for the Labour court to hold that termination of service of six workmen was in violation of the provision of section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour court had erred in referring or relying on incomplete evidence of MW1, whose evidence had been expunged due to his not appearing for cross - 3 - examination is also of no avail in as much the said MW 1 was produced by the petitioner and in his examination-in- chief if certain things stated by him could have gone to support the case of the six workmen the Labour court was not unjustified in looking into it specially when they also got corroborated from other evidence. The Labour court had also committed no error of record as with regard to mixing and jumbling identity card and affidavit in as much as both identity card and affidavit were on record by way of evidence. The further plea of the petitioner that there was an incident of threatening of witnesses as reported to the Labour court on 19.6.1988 and as such when the Labour court did not take any action for giving protection to those witnesses, it was the petitioner who became prejudiced on account of non-possibility of production of witness, again can not be accepted for a simple reason that the counsel for the petitioner had frankly conceded and admitted that no such information of threatening to the witnesses was given to any law and order authorities by the petitioner. The plea of threatening of witnesses as reported to the Labour court - 4 - thus does not inspire confidence which may also a device adopted by a shrewd employer to prejudice the Labour Court against the six workmen. Finally, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the findings of the Labour Court in the impugned award appeared to be based on mere presumption and in this context he has again referred to the findings relating to continuance of six workmen for a period of 12 years. As noted above paragraphs 7 and 8 of the written statement of the petitioner was itself sufficient to hold that such finding was correct specially when the same was also corroborated from other evidence on record. This Court exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India infact is not expected to scan the entire evidence referred to and relied in the award of Labour Court as an appellate court. That being so, this Court does not find any merit in this writ application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. shahid (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)