CWP No. 1924 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 1924 of 2009 Date of decision November 5, 2009 The District Forest Officer (Territorial) Bhiwani ....... Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Kartar Singh, AAG., Haryana for the petitioner. Mr. Vikram Sheoran, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The writ petition is against a direction for reinstatement and for back wages to a workman who complained that he had been illegally terminated from service. The contention of the workman was that he had been working from 15.7.1988 to 30.10.1998. The Management denied the contention and stated that the workman was engaged as a daily labourer from March 1993 and he failed to present himself for work in November, 1995 and he had raised the demand for the first time in the year 2001. Before the Labour Court the Management witness had produced Exs.M-1 to M-24 which purported to be copies of attendance register and muster roll. The Labour Court had observed in the order that Ex.M-1 proved that the workman had completed 240 days in one calendar year and elsewhere the Labour Court had observed with reference to Exs.M-2 to M-24 that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in every calendar year. This fact has been disputed by the CWP No. 1924 of 2009 2 Government in the writ petition and it was contended that there had been no such admission. 2. I have verified the documents which were tendered before the Labour Court and I find that Exs. M-2 to M-24 relate to the periods from 1992-93 to December, 1994. The muster rolls for the relevant years 1997-98 have not been produced. The Labour Court was obviously in error in assuming that the records had been produced for the years 1997-98 and that the workman's contribution to service was available through documents. 3. I had requested the learned counsel appearing for the State to produce the relevant records for the years 1997-98 and the counsel has produced copies of muster rolls from 1997-98 for the work entrusted to workmen for raising of plants in Bardu Nursery. The counsel for the workman points out that even as per the demand notice he had stated that he had been working in Behl and the Management has not produced the muster rolls for the said work but produced some records which were irrelevant. 4. Although the reasoning of the Labour Court was in some way defective that had assumed that Exs. M-2 to M-24 contained reference to muster rolls for the relevant period. I still find that decision cannot be different. It is no body's case that the muster roll was not available for the Management but did not produce the same. The only inference has to be adverse against the Management and it must be taken that the workman's contention that he had worked up to October, 1998 stood unrefuted through such documentary evidence which was possible of production by the Management. 5. Learned counsel for the State states that the wrokman had been appointed de hors the rules. I requested learned counsel for the State to show me any such contention as having been CWP No. 1924 of 2009 3 raised before the Labour Court and he concedes that there is no such defence before the Labour Court. It shall be therefore impermissible for the Government to plead that the appointment is illegal. The direction of reinstatement under the circumstances was perfectly justified. 6. The award of the Labour Court under the circumstances is confirmed and I find that there is no scope for interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 5, 2009 archana