CWP No. 5085 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 5085 of 2010 Date of decision: 06.05.2010 Satnam Singh s/o Gurbax Singh ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and another ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. M.S.Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 18.08.2009 (Annexure P-2), vide which the reference has been answered against the workman by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur on the ground that the workman has failed to prove that he has completed more than 240 days in service in 12 preceding months' from the date of his termination. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor by respondent No. 2-Management. He worked with the Management from January, 1986 to 18.07.2001. He was drawing CWP No. 5085 of 2010 2 Rs. 1500/- per month at the time of his termination. His services were terminated in violation of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. He contends that the petitioner-workman could not produce the records as the Management was required to maintain the records properly. On an application moved by the workman, the relevant records were summoned by the Labour Court. The Management failed to produce the said records and the explanation was given for non-production of the records that there was a fire on 14.03.2002, due to which the records were destroyed. He contends that the workman being dependent on the Management for production of the records, as he was a daily wager and was neither given an appointment letter nor any other document which would show that he was an employee of the Management, could not have produced the records, therefore, adverse inference should have been drawn by the Labour Court against the Management for non-production of the records. He, on this basis, states that the Award deserves to be set aside. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. The Labour Court has proceeded to decide the reference on the basis of the evidence, which has been led by the parties. As per the settled preposition of law, the onus is on the workman to prove that he has completed more than 240 days in service in 12 preceding months' from the date of his termination and that onus can be discharged by summoning the records. Respondent No. 2-Management could not produce the records for the period January, 1986 to September, 1995. The reason given by the Management Witness MW-1 Panna Lal was that the said record was destroyed in a fire on 14.03.2002. In support of this assertion, the report of CWP No. 5085 of 2010 3 the Municipal Fire Brigade, Batala was placed on record as Mark 'X', which showed that the services of the Municipal Fire Brigade, Batala were availed from 9.31 to 9.45 P.M. on 14.03.2002. No cross-examination of the Management Witness has been done on this aspect nor has any counter evidence been produced by the petitioner which would show that the assertion made by the Management for non-production of the records was incorrect or without any basis. It is true that the Management is the custodian of the records and is required to produce the same before the Court when it is asked to do so but they have cogent and reasonable explanation for non-production of the said records. No adverse inference, under those circumstances, can be drawn specially when there is no contradictory evidence placed on record or there is no cross-examination of the witnesses on that aspect. Accordingly, the conclusion, which has been drawn by the Labour Court and the findings recorded therein, are in accordance with law and based on the evidence on record. Finding no illegality in the impugned Award, the present writ petition stands dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE May 06, 2010 pj